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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/24/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the first and second blade edges bear a maximum degree of counteract to each other of lateral components of an active force from the workpiece material”. This phrasing remains grammatically awkward and should be amended accordingly. As noted in the previous Office Action, the examiner understands that this refers to lateral forces acting on the respective blade edges against each other to cancel out to a degree.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the intersection” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins (GB1008029, cited in IDS).
Claim 1: Perkins discloses a drill bit blade (12) for drilling a material (a drill bit - page 1, line 9), the drill bit blade defining an axis of rotation (the “longitudinal axis of the body”, see page 1, line 63), the drill bit blade comprising: a first side (e.g. 15) positioned on a first lateral side of the axis of rotation; and a second side (e.g. 16) positioned on a second lateral side of the axis of rotation, wherein the drill bit blade is flat between said first and second side (“plate-like” - page 1, line 45 see also Figs. 2-4); a blade tip point (19) that is laterally biased by a lateral bias distance relative to the axis of rotation (“offset” - page 1, lines 60-65); a first blade edge (17) starting at the blade tip point and ending at the first side; and a second blade edge (18) starting at the blade tip point and ending at the second side, wherein the drill bit blade is flat at least between said first and second blade edges (as noted above, the bit 12 is “plate-like” in the rea between the edges), wherein an angular bisector between the first blade edge and the second blade edge is inclined at an angle of inclination relative to the axis of rotation (this would be the case given that sides 15 and 16 are parallel, edge 17 meets side 15 at 110°, and edge 18 meets side 16 at 120°, the included angle between them being 130°, see page 1, lines 49-71), and wherein the lateral bias distance and the angle of inclination are configured in combination such that: during a drilling process, the first blade edge and the second blade edge each have an effective cutting section that is involved in drilling of a workpiece material and a non-cutting section that is not involved in the drilling of the workpiece material (this property is presumed inherent given the similar geometry - see MPEP 2112.01). This would also be partially dependent on the geometry of the workpiece being drilled relative to and in contact with the bit during drilling.
Claim 2: An inclination direction of the angular bisector is set such that the intersection of the angular bisector to the axis of rotation is axially rearward relative to the blade tip point (understood from paragraph 39 of the instant application, and based on the geometry as cited for claim 1 above, the intersection of the angular bisector and the axis of rotation would be located at an axially rearward position of the tip point).
Claim 6: The lateral bias distance (offset) and the angle of inclination are further configured in combination to achieve one or more of the following optimization objectives: a difference between a length of the first blade edge and a length of the second blade edge is less than a preset length difference limit value (noting that the “preset length difference limit value” is not defined and can be taken as an arbitrary value, the Perkins design could be said to meet this limitation); during the drilling process, a difference between an effective cutting section length of the first blade edge and an effective cutting section length of the second blade edge is less than a preset effective cutting section length difference limit value (similar argument to the above with regard to the “limit value”); and during the drilling process, the first and second blade edges bear a maximum degree of counteract to each other of lateral components of an active force from the workpiece material so that the lateral components on both blade edges produce a lateral counter-force that is less than a preset lateral force limit value (similar argument to the above with regard to the “limit value”; also, given the similar asymmetrical geometry, there is presumed to be lateral/radial forces on each cutting edge which at least partially counteract each other).
Claim 7: The lateral bias distance is greater than 0 and less than a drilling radius of the drill bit blade (the tip is laterally positioned between the center axis and the outermost side of the blade as shown).
Claim 8: The angular bisector between the first blade edge and the second blade edge is inclined at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 45 degrees relative to the axis of rotation (this is true based on the asymmetric edge angles cited above).
Claim 10: Perkins discloses a drill bit for drilling a material (a drill bit - page 1, line 9), comprising: a drill bit body (10); and a drill bit blade (12) mounted onto the drill bit body, the drill bit blade defining an axis of rotation (the “longitudinal axis of the body”, see page 1, line 63), and the drill bit blade comprising: a first side (e.g. 15) positioned on a first lateral side of the axis of rotation; a second side (e.g. 16) positioned on a second lateral side of the axis of rotation, wherein the drill bit blade is flat between said first and second side (“plate-like” - page 1, line 45 see also Figs. 2-4); a blade tip point (19) that is laterally biased by a lateral bias distance relative to the axis of rotation (“offset” - page 1, lines 60-65); a first blade edge (17) starting at the blade tip point and ending at the first side; and a second blade edge (18) starting at the blade tip point and ending at the second side (as noted above, the bit 12 is “plate-like” in the rea between the edges), wherein an angular bisector between the first blade edge and the second blade edge is inclined at an angle of inclination relative to the axis of rotation (this would be the case given that sides 15 and 16 are parallel, edge 17 meets side 15 at 110°, and edge 18 meets side 16 at 120°, the included angle between them being 130°, see page 1, lines 49-71), and wherein the lateral bias distance and the angle of inclination are configured in combination such that: during a drilling process, the first blade edge and the second blade edge each have an effective cutting section that is involved in drilling of a workpiece material and a non-cutting section that is not involved in the drilling of the workpiece material (this property is presumed inherent given the similar geometry - see MPEP 2112.01). This would also be partially dependent on the geometry of the workpiece being drilled relative to and in contact with the bit during drilling.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Zhang (CN2875659, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Perkins discloses a drill bit blade substantially as claimed except for wherein at least one of the first blade edge and the second blade edge includes at least two sequentially connected edge segments that are angled relative to each other. However, Zhang teaches a similar drill bit wherein at least one of the first blade edge and the second blade edge consists of at least two sequentially connected edge segments that are angled relative to each other (the second/right edge is divided at 0.31D into two segments angled at β1 = 45° and β2 = 30°). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed one of the edges with at least two sequentially connected edge segments, since it increases the heat capacity and heat dissipation space, enhances the strength of the cutting edge, and is particularly advantageous for machining materials with poor thermal conductivity and difficult to machine (Zhang, paragraph 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3-4 were not rejected over Perkins in the previous Office Action. Perkins lacks sufficient information to determine whether it meets the geometry required by claim 3, and the prior art of record does not provide particular motivation to modify Perkins to meet the claimed limitations. Claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered.
The rejections over Zhang and Kobe have been withdrawn given that they do not disclose flat blades as now required by the claims. Arguments pertaining to these rejections are thus moot.
Applicant agrees that the Perkins blade is flat (Remarks at top of page 7). It is noted that the examiner also interprets the flatness as being between the sides and edges not counting any edge beveling resulting from sharpening, which would appear to be consistent with the instant application which also appears to include edge bevels, though not shown (see instant paragraph 42).
Regarding the limitations of previous claim 5 (now incorporated into claims 1 and 10), the claimed function is attributed specifically to lateral bias distance and angle of inclination, not the location of the terminal points as in claims 3-4. It is also unclear how the location of the terminal points would influence the cutting or non-cutting action at the cutting edges. The geometry of Perkins is thus substantially the same as recited in claim 1, and so the properties thereof are presumed inherent as previously discussed.
The limitation of claim 5 is also essentially stating that each of the blade edges has a portion that cuts and a portion that does not cut during drilling. This may occur depending on the nature of the material being drilled, for example where the drilled material does not extend all the way to the outer edges of the bit such that outer edges do not cut any material, or conversely if the bit is widening an existing hole such that inner portions of the edges do not cut. Thus, the limitations of claim 5 may be met even without necessarily meeting the claimed geometry.
Claim 6 compares certain geometric features of the blade to arbitrary and non-limiting "limit values", which are addressed in the rejection 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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 K. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights