DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beer et al. (DE102016113348) of which the attached its corresponding English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Beer teaches a rotary tool (Fig. 20) comprising:
a main blade (Fig. 1, 30);
a chip flute (Fig. 1, 34);
a lateral surface (Fig. 1, 40); and
a flank (Fig. 1, 28-1, 28-2) trailing after the main blade (Fig. 1, 30), wherein the flank (Fig. 1, 28-1, 28-2) first drops off proceeding from the main blade (Fig. 1, 30) and then rises again, such that a sink (Figs. 6 & 14, 50) is formed, to which a ridge (Fig. 1, 32) adjoins, which extends up to the lateral surface (Fig. 1, 40) and the chip flute (Fig. 1, 34) (Figs. 16 and 17 show a sink (50) with a thickness T50 and width (B50).) (Figs. 6 & 14 show a sink adjoining a ridge.).
Regarding Claim 3, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 1, wherein the sink (Figs 16 & 17, 50) is concave (Figs. 16 & 17 show the sink in the shape of concave.).
Regarding Claim 6, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 1, wherein the sink (Fig. 10, 50) extends from the lateral surface up to the chip flute (Fig. 10, 34) ([0052]: the recess 50 is designed … leads over … to the chip groove 34).
Regarding Claim 7, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 1, having a center (Fig. 1, area surrounding 24) and a tip (Fig. 1, 24), wherein the sink reaches into the center and passes by the tip (Figs. 6, 12 & 14 shows a sink (50) passes by the tip (24).).
Regarding Claim 8, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 1, comprising a coolant channel having a mouth (Figs. 6, 13 & 14, 22) that lies within the sink (Figs. 6, 13 & 14, 50).
Regarding Claim 9, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 8, wherein the flank (Fig. 1, 28-1, 28-2) comprises a notch (Figs. 9 & 10, 50) for outputting coolant towards the chip flute or the lateral surface (Figs. 9 and 10 show a notch 50 leading to the outer surface and flute 34 respectively.).
Regarding Claim 11, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 1, wherein the latter is a drill ([0001]: drilling tool).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer et al. (DE102016113348) of which the attached its corresponding English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 2, although Beer does not explicitly teach that the ridge is configured as a plateau, Fig. 1 appears to show the ridge (32) as a plateau.
Regarding Claim 10, although Beer does not explicitly teach that an angle between the ridge and the sink surfaces is at least 90°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a desired angle (including at least 90°) between these two surfaces that would result in an optimal performance of the rotary tool in terms of heat, torque and stability.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer et al. (DE102016113348) of which the attached corresponding English translation is cited in view of Kauper et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0213543).
Regarding Claim 5, Beer teaches the rotary tool according to claim 1, but, does not teach wherein the flank is configured without edges proceeding from the main blade up to the ridge.
Kauper teaches the rotary tool (Fig. 1, 2), wherein the flank (Fig. 1, 20) is configured without edges proceeding from the main blade (Fig.1, 8) up to the ridge (Fig. 1, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the flank surface of the tool of Beer without an edge such that it would improve centering of the drill as suggested in Kauper [0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 1/24/2026