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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-9, 13 and 17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-16 and 18 in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “dependent claim 10 recites "wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the force to be applied to the drill bit using a historical prediction model," and dependent claim 11, which depends from dependent claim 10, recites "wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a second force to be applied to the drill bit using a bitwise prediction model." Accordingly, the claims themselves contemplate an embodiment in which "the one or more predictive models" recited by independent claim 1 include both a bitwise prediction model and a historical prediction model”.
This is found persuasive.
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, 6-7, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAN (CN112058946B attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, YAN discloses a drill bit straightening system (fig.1, paragraphs 0001, 0073-0075, 0102 and 0152-0156: the straightening system is capable to straight a drill bit) comprising:
a mounting frame (implicitly, must having a frame to hold the device of fig.1);
a drill bit holding assembly (fig.1: (2)) configured to hold a drill bit (fig.1: element (5) “corresponding to “a drill bit”);
one or more sensors (fig.1: (6)) configured to measure edge eccentricity of a shaft associated with the drill bit (paragraphs 0080-0083);
a drill bit pressing arm (fig.1: (4)) installed on the mounting frame and configured to straighten the drill bit by applying a force calculated based on one or more predictive models (paragraph 0113-0124); and a control unit (fig.1: (8)) configured to automatically control a straightening operation of the drill bit straightening system based on the one or more predictive models (paragraphs 0102-0103; 0113-0153).
Regarding claim 2, YAN discloses wherein the drill bit holding assembly is configured to hold the drill bit proximately at one end of the drill bit, forming a cantilever connection between the drill bit holding assembly and the drill bit (fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, YAN discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a laser micrometer (paragraph 0080: laser sensor is photoelectric sensor).
Regarding claim 7, YAN discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a laser micrometer; and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure a warp horizontally in the drill bit without contacting the drill bit (paragraph 0080: photoelectric sensor).
Regarding claim 14, YAN discloses wherein the drill bit pressing arm is configured to apply the force at a distance from the drill bit holding assembly along the drill bit (paragraphs 0049-0053 and 0098-0102).
Regarding claim 15, YAN discloses wherein the distance is pre- determined, and wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the force be applied to the drill bit based on the pre-determined distance from the drill bit holding assembly along the drill bit at which the force is to be applied (paragraphs 0049-0053 and 0098-0102).
Regarding claim 16, YAN discloses wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the distance from the drill bit holding assembly along the drill bit at which to apply the force (paragraphs 0049-0053 and 0098-0102).
Regarding claim 18, YAN discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the drill bit is within an acceptable specification range after applying the force and calculate a second force to be applied to the drill bit if the drill bit is not within the acceptable specification range after applying the force (paragraphs 0049-0053 and 0098-0102).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galdabini (US4154073A).
Regarding claim 1, Galdabini discloses a drill bit straightening system (fig.1, col.2 line 47-col.3: the straightening system is capable to straight a drill bit) comprising:
a mounting frame (the frame of fig.1);
a drill bit holding assembly (fig.1: (14) and (15)) configured to hold a drill bit (fig.1: element (A) “corresponding to “a drill bit”);
one or more sensors (fig.1: (21)) configured to measure edge eccentricity of a shaft associated with the drill bit;
a drill bit pressing arm (fig.1: (18)) installed on the mounting frame and configured to straighten the drill bit by applying a force calculated based on one or more predictive models (fig.2); and a control unit (fig.2: (53)) configured to automatically control a straightening operation of the drill bit straightening system based on the one or more predictive models (col.2 line 47-col.3).
Regarding claim 5, Galdabini discloses wherein the drill bit holding assembly (fig.1: (14) and (15)) is configured to secure and support the drill bit at multiple locations along the drill bit
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN (CN112058946B attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 6-7, YAN does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors include a laser micrometer; and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure a warp horizontally in the drill bit without contacting the drill bit.
However, using the contactless sensors (such as laser, radar, optical, ultrasonic) is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the system as desired.
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the one or more sensors include a laser micrometer; and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure a warp horizontally in the drill bit without contacting the drill bit in order to have the advantage of using the contactless sensors of high-precision, non-invasive measurement, offering key advantages like eliminating surface damage or contamination on delicate materials; and ensure high-speed, real-time data for automated processes while enhancing safety by eliminating wear, enabling measurements of moving, hot, or inaccessible objects, and reducing maintenance costs.
Regarding claims 10-12, YAN disclose wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the force to be applied to the drill bit using a mathematical model; wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a second force to be applied to the drill bit using the mathematical model; and wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the second force to be applied to the drill bit using the mathematical model (paragraphs 0049-0053 and 0098-0102) and additional information, the additional information including one or more of an overall spine shape, a force versus displacement curve determined during a bending operation, and lot or batch specific information (paragraph 0154).
YAN does not disclose a historical prediction model and a bitwise prediction model.
However, YAN disclose using the mathematical model; and
using would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select using a historical prediction model and a bitwise prediction model, as a matter of routine engineering design choice
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN (CN112058946B attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Mitze (US20130160514A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, YAN does not disclose wherein the drill bit holding assembly comprises a large top wheel that opens and allows the drill bit to be set into a valley formed by two lower wheels; and wherein the large top wheel of the drill bit holding assembly is configured to close and clamp on the drill bit, forming the cantilever connection between the drill bit holding assembly and the drill bit.
Mitze teaches a straightening system, comprising: a holding assembly comprises a large top wheel that opens and allows a workpiece to be set into a valley formed by two lower wheels; and wherein the large top wheel of the holding assembly is configured to close and clamp on the workpiece, forming a cantilever connection between the holding assembly and the workpiece (fig.5 and paragraph 0030).
Both of the prior arts of YAN and Mitze are related to a straightening system;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration of the drill bit holding assembly of YAN by the configuration of the bit holding assembly as taught by Mitze since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (MPEP 2143). Thereby having wherein the drill bit holding assembly comprises a large top wheel that opens and allows the drill bit to be set into a valley formed by two lower wheels; and wherein the large top wheel of the drill bit holding assembly is configured to close and clamp on the drill bit, forming the cantilever connection between the drill bit holding assembly and the drill bit.
Regarding claim 5, YAN does not disclose wherein the drill bit holding assembly is configured to secure and support the drill bit at multiple locations along the drill bit.
Mitze teaches a straightening system, comprising: a holding assembly is configured to secure and support a workpiece at multiple locations along the workpiece (fig.3 and paragraph 0025).
Both of the prior arts of YAN and Mitze are related to a straightening system;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration of the drill bit holding assembly of YAN by the configuration of the bit holding assembly as taught by Mitze since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (MPEP 2143). Thereby having wherein the drill bit holding assembly is configured to secure and support the drill bit at multiple locations along the drill bit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights