Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/248,829

TOOL BIT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 12, 2023
Examiner
SHAKERI, HADI
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
1119 granted / 1808 resolved
-8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
1875
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1808 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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: Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stillwagon, Jr. et al. (3,253,626 “Stillwagon”) in view of Braunberger et al. (D568,474 “Braunberger”). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]Stillwagon meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., [AltContent: arrow]a tool bit 12 comprising: a working end 18; a shank 15,12,17 (at least partially) extending from the working end 18 and defining a longitudinal axis dashed lines; and a drive portion 15 coupled to an end of the shank opposite from the working end Fig. 2, the drive portion including a plurality of corners Fig. 2, the drive portion being configured to be engaged by a tool 11, Fig. 1; wherein the drive portion 15 includes a plurality of grooves removed corners 16, 02:56-60 formed at the plurality of corners and circumferentially spaced around the longitudinal axis Fig. 1, except for the plurality of grooves to intersect each other at edges such that each of the plurality of grooves abuts at least one adjacent groove. Please note that relatively narrow flats between grooves may also define edges that abut the adjacent groove, since a common edge is not recited. PNG media_image3.png 302 207 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 316 185 media_image4.png Greyscale However, Braunberger et al. teaches a shank for a drill having grooves annotated partial Figs. 1-3 that are separated by flats as in Figs. 1-3 or the grooves intersect each other at edges such that each of the plurality of grooves abuts at least one adjacent groove partial Figs. 7-9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the arrangements of the groove of Stillwagon with grooves that intersect each other as taught by Braunberger et al. as an alternative arrangements of the grooves for the quick change bits. Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Stillwagon modified by Braunberger et al.) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 1, wherein the grooves removed corners or cutouts extend axially parallel to the longitudinal axis along the drive portion Fig. 2 Stillwagon. Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 2, wherein the grooves cutouts extend axially parallel to the longitudinal axis along an axial segment defined by the mid-portion of the drive portion Fig. 2 Stillwagon. Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 1, wherein the plurality of grooves cutouts are evenly circumferentially spaced around the longitudinal axis Fig. 2. PNG media_image7.png 249 240 media_image7.png Greyscale [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CHAMFER)]Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 1, wherein the drive portion 15 includes a distal end spaced from the working end, the distal end having a chamfer partial Fig. 2 annotated here. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FLATS)]Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 1, wherein the drive portion 15 includes a plurality of flats annotated Fig. 2, and wherein one of the plurality of flats is positioned between each pair of adjacent grooves. Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 1, wherein the drive portion 15 has a hexagonal cross-section with respect to the longitudinal axis. CLAIM 9 [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]Stillwagon discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, i.e., a tool bit 12 comprising: a working end 18; a shank 15,12,17 (at least partially) extending from the working end 18 and defining a longitudinal axis dashed lines; and a drive portion 15 coupled to an end of the shank opposite from the working end Fig. 2 (partially shown here), the drive portion including a plurality of corners Fig. 2, the drive portion being configured to be engaged by a tool 11, Fig. 1; wherein the drive portion 15 includes a plurality of grooves removed corners 16, 02:56-60, annotated here formed at the plurality of corners and circumferentially spaced around the longitudinal axis Fig. 1, [[and]] wherein each of the grooves is defined by a flat surface annotated Fig. 2. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FLATS)]wherein the drive portion includes a plurality of flats annotated here, and wherein one of the plurality of flats center flat is positioned between each pair of adjacent grooves; wherein the plurality of flats separate the plurality of grooves into discrete grooves Fig. 2; and except for wherein the plurality of grooves to be wider circumferentially than the plurality of flats. PNG media_image9.png 296 190 media_image9.png Greyscale [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FLATS)][AltContent: textbox (GROOVES)] Braunberger et al. teaches a shank for a drill having grooves annotated partial Figs. 1-3 that are separated by flats into discrete grooves, wherein the plurality of grooves are wider circumferentially than the plurality of flats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the arrangements of the groove of Stillwagon with narrow flats separating the grooves as taught by Braunberger et al. as an alternative arrangements of the grooves for the quick change bits. Regarding claim 10, PA (prior art, Stillwagon modified by Braunberger) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 9, wherein the flat surface is offset from and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis annotated Fig. 2. Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 9, wherein the drive portion 15 is provided with a fillet end corners of the flat surfaces defined by the cutouts at an axial end of each groove to transition between a corresponding corner of the plurality of corners and the groove Fig. 2. Claims 14-19 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stillwagon in view of Mahajan et al. (2012/0275875 “Mahajan”). PNG media_image1.png 191 319 media_image1.png Greyscale Stillwagon meets all of the limitations of claim 14, i.e., a tool bit 12 comprising: a working end 18; a shank 15,12,17 (at least partially) extending from the working end 18 and defining a longitudinal axis dashed lines; and a drive portion 15 coupled to an end of the shank opposite from the working end Fig. 2, the drive portion including a plurality of corners Fig. 2, the drive portion being configured to be engaged by a tool 11, Fig. 1; wherein the drive portion 15 includes a plurality of primary grooves removed corners or cutouts 16, 02:56-60 formed at the plurality of corners and circumferentially spaced around the longitudinal axis Fig. 1, except for a plurality of auxiliary grooves positioned circumferentially between the plurality of primary grooves to form an alternating pattern of primary grooves and auxiliary grooves separated by a single edge at each interface between the primary grooves and the auxiliary grooves. PNG media_image11.png 463 146 media_image11.png Greyscale [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (PRIMARY)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AUX)][AltContent: arrow]Mahajan teaches a setscrew for a surgical element disclosing a plurality of different embodiments for the retaining grooves, e.g., 29 Fig. 8 or Fig. 9, wherein the groove may be of any shapes, e.g., as in Fig. 10B, wherein the groove forms a compound groove defining a plurality of auxiliary base positioned circumferentially between the plurality of primary groove sloped sides, Fig. 10B separated by a single edge intersection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the groove of Stillwagon with the different shapes with auxiliary grooves as taught by Mahajan to reduce shock and/or as an alternative means of achieving the same results requiring routine experimentations with predictable results. Regarding claim 15, PA (prior art, Stillwagon modified by Mahajan) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 14, wherein the plurality of auxiliary grooves Aux define edges formed at the intersection @ flat base located between each of the plurality of auxiliary grooves and adjacent primary grooves Fig. 10B annotated above. Regarding claim 16, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 14, wherein the plurality of auxiliary grooves Aux differ in depth from the plurality of primary grooves Fig. 10B annotated above. Regarding claim 17, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 16, wherein the plurality of auxiliary grooves are shallower in depth than the plurality of primary grooves Fig. 10B annotated above. Regarding claim 18, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 14, wherein the plurality of primary grooves and the plurality of auxiliary grooves are both concave in shape Fig. 10B annotated above. Regarding claim 19, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit of claim 14, wherein the plurality of auxiliary grooves Aux are circumferentially spaced around the longitudinal axis between the plurality of primary grooves Fig. 10B annotated above. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regarding claim 1 that grooves intersect at an edge, Applicant’s remarks are moot in view of modification in view of Braunberger et al. Similarly with regards to claim 9, Applicant argument that the grooves are not wider than the flats therebetween, is moot in view of the modification over Braunberger as now applied. Regarding the rejection of claim 14, Applicant argues that the primary and auxiliary grooves as taught by the teaching reference are not arranged as now recited in the claim. Examiner, respectfully disagrees, since changing the terminology of “auxiliary” and “primary”; lacking requirements to prevent such reading, i.e., defining the single center groove as primary and the flanking compound grooves on top and bottom, as the auxiliary grooves meets the claim as recited. Although this action is final, Examienr is available for further discussion. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Hadi Shakeri/ December 25, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 18, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 18, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594659
FLUID-POWERED TORQUE WRENCH WITH FLUID PUMP CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594795
TYRE SUPPORT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564918
TOOL BIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552009
Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551991
Tool with Ratchet Mechanism
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1808 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month