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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 6, second line from the bottom recites, “honed face 8 4 may be 0”. It appears the “8” [eight] is a typographical error which should be replace with “θ” [theta].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamori (JP 6011849 B2) in view of Kondo (JP 2002172506 A).
As to claim 1, Kitamori teaches a drill (drill 1), comprising: a body having two to four cutting edges (there two cutting edges 5 illustrated for example in Figs 2 and 4) each comprising cemented carbide or polycrystalline diamond (In the translation, Page 4 Paragraph 5: “The step drill according to the present invention is made of cemented carbide or high-speed tool steel.”) such that helical flutes are formed alternately with the cutting edges (as illustrated in Fig 1), wherein X-shaped thinning has been applied to the cutting edges (X-shaped thinning is shown in Fig 2), a rake angle of the cutting edges is not less than 30 degrees and not more than 40 degrees (The helix (torsion) angle is equal to the rake angle. Kitamori teaches the torsion angle α1 is 15 to 30 degrees, which overlaps the claimed range of 30-40 degrees. See Page 3 paragraph 2), and each of the cutting edges has a honed face by chamfer honing such that a honing angle of the honed face is not less than −3 degrees and not more than 8 degrees (as shown in Fig 4, the clearance angle is defined as angle δ between Q and P. At page 4 paragraph 2 Kitamori teaches this angle is from 5-15 degrees, which overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 I.).
Kitamori does not teach a clearance angle of the cutting edges is more than 0 degrees and not more than 8 degrees.
However, drills of various configurations were known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, including configurations having a clearance angle of the cutting edges more than 0 and not more than 8 degrees. See Kondo which teaches at [0008]: “Further, the clearance angle of the tip cutting edge is less than 10 degrees, if it exceeds 10 degrees, the angle between the honing surface and the flank or the angle between the rake face and the flank becomes too sharp, It was less than 10 degrees. Considering the outer diameter of the drill and the like, 5 ° to 10 ° is preferable.”
Since 5-15 degrees overlaps with 0-8 degrees, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144. 05 I.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Kitamori’s drill in view of the teachings of Kondo to provide for a clearance angle of the cutting edges is more than 0 degrees and not more than 8 degrees.
Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits described by Kondo: to prevent the angle becoming “too sharp.”
As to claim 5, Kitamori in view of Kondo teaches the drill according to claim 1, wherein each of the cutting edges comprises cemented carbide (as described above, Kitamori Page 4 Paragraph 5 teaches “The step drill according to the present invention is made of cemented carbide or high-speed tool steel.”).
As to claim 13, Kitamori in view of Kondo teaches a method of producing a drilled product, comprising: producing the drilled product by drilling a part with the drill of claim 1 (Kitamori teaches the use of the drill in a “work material”), wherein the part is made of a titanium alloy (Page 5 paragraph 2 describes the “work material” as comprising titanium alloy).
Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamori in view of Kondo as applied to claims 1 or 5 above respectively, and further in view of Matsuo et al. (US 10,399,153).
As to claim 2, Kitamori in view of Kondo teaches the drill according to claim 1, wherein the cutting edges each has a flank face having the clearance angle and another flank face adjacent to the flank face (as shown in Kitamori Figs 3 and 4). Kitamori in view of Kondo does not teach a discharge port for discharging cutting fluid toward a workpiece being opened at the another flank face.
However, discharge ports were well known in the field of drills at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Matsuo which teaches a drill having a similar configuration to Kitamori. Matsuo further teaches coolant holes 9 in flanks 6b.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Kitamori to have provided for the coolant holes 9 of Matsuo. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to more effectively cool the drill bit. See also MPEP § 2143 A.
As to claim 6, Kitamori in view of Kondo teaches the drill according to claim 5, wherein the cutting edges each has a flank face having the clearance angle and another flank face adjacent to the flank face (as shown in Kitamori Figs 3 and 4). Kitamori in view of Kondo does not teach a discharge port for discharging cutting fluid toward a workpiece being opened at the another flank face.
However, discharge ports were well known in the field of drills at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Matsuo which teaches a drill having a similar configuration to Kitamori. Matsuo further teaches coolant holes 9 in flanks 6b.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Kitamori to have provided for the coolant holes 9 of Matsuo. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to more effectively cool the drill bit. See also MPEP § 2143 A.
As to claim 9, Kitamori in view of Kondo teaches the drill according to claim 1, but does not teach each of the cutting edges comprises polycrystalline diamond.
Rather, each of Kitamori and Kondo teach the drill bits are cemented carbide. However, it was well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for cutting edges of cemented carbide drills to be made of polycrystalline diamond. See Matsuo which teaches at Col 2 lines 31-37: “The rotary cutting tool includes: a tool body configured to be rotated about an axis with a carbide substrate made of cemented carbide and a flute provided at a tip portion of the tool body; a PCD layer made of a PCD material sintered integrally with the carbide substrate and provided on an inside face of the flute which faces in a rotation direction of the tool body.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Kitamori to have provided for the cutting edges to be polycrystalline diamond. Such a person would have been motivated to do so because Matsuo teaches the fracturing resistance of PCD can be improved by embedding PCD in cemented carbide, as described at Col 2 lines 17-27.
As to claim 10, Kitamori in view of Kondo teaches the drill according to claim 9, wherein the cutting edges each has a flank face having the clearance angle and another flank face adjacent to the flank face (as shown in Kitamori Figs 3 and 4). Kitamori in view of Kondo does not teach a discharge port for discharging cutting fluid toward a workpiece being opened at the another flank face.
However, discharge ports were well known in the field of drills at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Matsuo which teaches a drill having a similar configuration to Kitamori. Matsuo further teaches coolant holes 9 in flanks 6b.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Kitamori to have provided for the coolant holes 9 of Matsuo. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to more effectively cool the drill bit. See also MPEP § 2143 A.
As to claim 15, Kitamori in view of Kondo and Matsuo teaches a method of producing a drilled product, comprising: producing the drilled product by drilling a part with the drill of claim 2 (Kitamori teaches the use of the drill in a “work material”), wherein the part is made of a titanium alloy (Page 5 paragraph 2 describes the “work material” as comprising titanium alloy).
As to claim 17, Kitamori in view of Kondo and Matsuo teaches a method of producing a drilled product, comprising: producing the drilled product by drilling a part with the drill of claim 6 (Kitamori teaches the use of the drill in a “work material”), wherein the part is made of a titanium alloy (Page 5 paragraph 2 describes the “work material” as comprising titanium alloy).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 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: Examiner’s best art does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 3. Specifically, Examiner’s art does not discuss a double-margin drill, and the cutting edge length of the drill is longer than give times a tool diameter of the drill in addition to the limitations of the independent claim.
Kitamori is not a double margin drill, nor does it discuss the specific edge length-to-diameter ratio.
Kondo and Matsuo are similar silent on both points.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 contain the same limitations as claim 3.
Claims 14, 16, and 19 depend from claims 3 or 4.
Examiner’s best art does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 18 or 20.
Kitamori, Kondo, and Matsuo are silent with regards to specific rotation speeds and vibration cutting of particular amplitudes required by claims 18 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 20 February 2026