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 .
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 2007/0110529 Lothar Kuensel (‘Kuenzel hereafter), App 11/619311, Filed 01/03/2007
U.S. 2015/0336184 Magnus Aare (‘Aare hereafter), App 14/717305, Filed 05/20/2015
U.S. 2006/0056929 Peter Haenle (‘Haenle hereafter), App 11/268320, Filed 11/07/2005.
U.S. 2021/0245268 Schur et al. (‘Schur hereafter), App 16/973503, Filed 16/973503.
U.S. 5,146,669 Joseph F. Fabiano (‘Fabiano hereafter), Filed 09/15/1992
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 18 are currently being examined.
Claims 2, 12 - 17 have been withdrawn.
No Claims have been canceled.
No Claims are allowed or objected to for allowable subject matter.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2007/0110529 Lothar Kuensel (‘Kuenzel hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 5,146,669 Joseph F. Fabiano (‘Fabiano hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations including: A single-lip drill (‘Kuenzel, Para 0004, “In single-lip deep hole drills the swarf is removed
by means of a supplied lubricant via the relatively large, straight-grooved machined groove as a result of the single-lip geometry. The actual cutting process takes place by
means of a drill cutter which can be located on a cutting plate or a cutting insert, for example which is screwed onto the cutter carrier. At the same time, during drilling the tool is supported over its circumference in the drill hole by corresponding guide strips.” Fig 1 (below), system of #1 (drill head), #15 (drill shank), #16 (clamping sleeve)) comprising:
a drill head (‘Kuenzel, #1 (drill head)), that comprises two interchangeable guide bars (‘Kuenzel, Fig 1 (below), #3 (guide strips/ guide bars)),
a flute (‘Kuenzel, Figs 1 & 3 show a flute), and
a cooling lubricant channel (‘Kuenzel, Para 0028, “The internal cooling channel has, for example, one or two circular cross-sections at the drill tip whereas a circular through hole is inserted on the drill shank.” Fig 3 (below) #11 (outlet openings/ cooling lubricant channel); and
two indentations formed in the drill head to mount the two interchangeable guide bars (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows #9 (rear surface/ base area) to be the bottom of the indentations),
the two indentations each having two [[substantially]] parallel side faces and a base area (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows #9 (rear surface/ base area) to have two parallel side faces),
wherein the cooling lubricant channel ends in a front side or tip of the drill head (11) (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), and
Except ‘Kuenzel is silent regarding: wherein a width of the base area of each respective indentation is at least 30% smaller than a distance between the side faces and wherein the base area of each respective indentation is a bottom face.
However, ‘Fabiano does teach: wherein a width of the base area of each respective indentation is at least 30% smaller than a distance between the side faces and wherein the base area of each respective indentation is a bottom face (‘Fabiano, Figs 2 &19 (below), Fig 2 shows “-A-“ is smaller than “-B-“, Col. 4, ln 59 – 61, “FIG. 17 is a side view of radius cutting tip inserts according to the present invention having various back edge profiles,” Col. 8, ln 1 – 5, “A negative seat cutter 114 illustrated by FIG. 18 would cut a seating side 111 to mate with a negative insert shown by FIG. 16, and radius seat cutter 116 illustrated by FIG. 18 would be used to cut a seating side 111 to mate with a radius insert shown by FIG. 17.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Kuenzel with a width of he base is 30% less than the distance between the faces as taught by ‘Fabiano in order to provide a secure seat in a pocket that does not require removing large volume of material (‘Fabiano, Abst).
Further, regarding “at least 30% smaller,” Applicant does not show criticality for 30% and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “At least 30% smaller and ”is a result effective variable.
And also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim[s] 3, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano, discloses all the claim limitations including: at least one flat connecting surface is provided between each of the side faces and the base area (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows #9 (rear surface/ base area) to be the flat surface) shows sides surfaces between the rear surface towards the center of the drill and the outer surface).
Regarding Claim[s] 4, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano, discloses all the claim limitations including: at least one relief groove is provided between each of the side faces and the base area (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows a relief groove comprising of #9 and the side faces.).
Regarding Claim[s] 5, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: least one curved connecting surface is provided between each of the side faces and the base area (‘Fabiano, Figs 2 &19, show #36 & #38 (cutting tip insert) near #46 and the intersection of the side wall and the base to have a radius. Col. 4, ln 59 – 61, “FIG. 17 is a side view of radius cutting tip inserts according to the present invention having various back edge profiles.”)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Kuenzel with curved connection surfaces as taught by ‘Fabiano in order to provide the intersection of two surfaces with less stress concentration. ‘Fabiano uses a known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding Claim[s] 7, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: the two indentations each extend substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of the single-lip drill (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows #9 at the base of the indentations to be straight lines perpendicular to the circle’s radius and parallel to the axis of rotation.)
Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: two indentations are offset from each other in a circumferential direction by an angle β greater than 100° and less than 118° (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows the circumferential direction angle to be between 100 and 118 degree).
Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: center of the cooling lubricant channel lies in a middle between the flat connecting surfaces (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows the cooling channel is between the connecting surfaces or in the middle between the at least single-curved connecting surfaces of the indentations, Para 0049, “The embodiment of the deep hole drilling tool according to the invention shown in FIG. 1 comprises a single-lipped deep hole drill with a cutter on the replaceable plate 2 which is supported by means of two guide strips 3 over its diameter in the hole. With reference to the views of the drills tip shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, this embodiment is compared with a further embodiment which has only one guide strip 30. It is found that the invention can be realized in the same way using this type of deep hole drill. In this case, the additional advantage arises that more space is available for the internal cooling channel (see outlet openings 12, 11).”)
Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: center of the cooling lubricant channel lies in a middle between a cylindrical outer surface of the drill head and a plate seat of an interchangeable insert of the drill head (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows the center of the cooling lubricant channel lies in a middle between a cylindrical outer surface of the drill head and a plate seat of an interchangeable insert of the drill head).
Regarding Claim[s] 18, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein a center of the cooling lubricant channel lies in a middle between the curved connecting surfaces of the indentations (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows the cooling channel is between the connecting surfaces or in the middle between the at least single-curved connecting surfaces of the indentations, Para 0049, “The embodiment of the deep hole drilling tool according to the invention shown in FIG. 1 comprises a single-lipped deep hole drill with a cutter on the replaceable plate 2 which is supported by means of two guide strips 3 over its diameter in the hole. With reference to the views of the drills tip shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, this embodiment is compared with a further embodiment which has only one guide strip 30. It is found that the invention can be realized in the same way using this type of deep hole drill. In this case, the additional advantage arises that more space is available for the internal cooling channel (see outlet openings 12, 11).”).
Regarding Claim[s] 5, ‘Kuenzel and ‘Fabiano discloses all the claim limitations including: least one curved connecting surface is provided between each of the side faces and the base area (‘Fabiano, Figs 2 &19, show #36 & #38 (cutting tip insert) near #46 and the intersection of the side wall and the base to have a radius. Col. 4, ln 59 – 61, “FIG. 17 is a side view of radius cutting tip inserts according to the present invention having various back edge profiles.”)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Kuenzel with curved connection surfaces as taught by ‘Fabiano in order to provide the intersection of two surfaces with less stress concentration. ‘Fabiano uses a known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2007/0110529 Lothar Kuensel (‘Kuenzel hereafter), and in view of U.S. 5,146,669 Joseph F. Fabiano (‘Fabiano hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 2006/0056929 Peter Haenle (‘Haenle hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 6, ‘Kuenzel & ‘Faboano discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: wherein the at least one curved connecting surface is concavely curved or convexly curved.
However, ‘Haenle teaches: Figs 1 & 2, shows a convex curved surface, Para 0058, In the outer section 101a adjacent to the auxiliary cutting edge, the principal cutting edge has a continuously convex curvature in the plane spanned by the cutting corner and the drill-axis parallel at the plotted point of the chisel edge 105 whereas in the central section 101b, it runs rectilinearly at the acute angle .alpha. in the plane spanned by the cutting corner 102 and the drill-axis parallel at the plotted point of the chisel edge 105. In this case, the section 101a goes over tangentially into the section 101b; T.sub.2 is the tangent of the section 101a at the transition into the second section 101b which is at the same time a side of the acute angle alpha. Para 0060, “Both conical-surface-shaped ground free faces 109 additionally have an undercut face 115 wherein a mouth or outlet opening of the Y-shaped internal cooling channel is located in each case at the ridge formed by the free face 109 and the undercut face 115. The outlet opening 117 is widened towards the back of the web or towards the cutting groove by the undercut face 115 so that an increased coolant throughput and an intensified removal of coolant into the cutting groove is brought about.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Kuenzel with curved connecting surface as a convex as taught by ‘Haenle in order to provide an increased coolant (‘Haenle, Para 0060).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2007/0110529 Lothar Kuensel (‘Kuenzel hereafter), and in view of U.S. 5,146,669 Joseph F. Fabiano (‘Fabiano hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 2021/0245268 Schur et al. (‘Schur hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Kuenzel & ‘Faboano discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: flute is delimited by a chip surface and a wall, wherein the chip surface and the wall enclose an angle, and wherein the angle is between 105° and 125°.
However, ‘Schur teaches: Para 0037, “In the shank 9 and the drill head 5 there is a longitudinal groove 11, which is also referred to as a bead. The longitudinal groove 11 has a cross section approximately in the form of a circular segment having an angle usually of approximately 90° to 130°. The longitudinal groove 11 extends from the tip of the drill up to in front of the clamping sleeve 7. Because of the longitudinal groove, the drill head 5 and shank 9 have a cross section approximately in the shape of a circular segment having an angle of usually 230° to 270° (a supplementary angle to the angle of the longitudinal groove).” Para 0042, “In FIG. 3, the central axis 3 is shown as “X.” The straight (longitudinal) groove 11 is also clearly visible. It is defined by a rake face 23 and a wall 25. The rake face 23 and the wall 25 include an angle of approximately 130°. In the embodiment shown, the rake face 23 extends through the central axis 3. A rake face plane 27, indicated by a dot-dashed line, likewise extends through the central axis 3. The rake face plane 27 is a geometric definition which is not always visible on the single-lip drill. The rake face plane 27 is defined in that it extends parallel to the rake face 23 and through the central axis 3.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Kuenzel with flute chip surface and wall where the chip surface and the enclosed wall angle is between 105 and 125 degree(90 – 130 degree) as taught by ‘Schur in order to provide an increased coolant.
So that chips do not accumulate (‘Schur Para 0011).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2007/0110529 Figures 1 & 2
PNG
media_image2.png
691
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2007/0110529 Figure 3
PNG
media_image3.png
750
961
media_image3.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2007/0110529 Figures 4 & 5
[AltContent: textbox (-A-)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
681
743
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (-B-)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]U.S. 5,146,669 Figure 2
PNG
media_image5.png
654
809
media_image5.png
Greyscale
U.S. 5,146,669 Figure 19
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pgs 8 - 9 , filed 08/28/2026, with respect to drawing and specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings and specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pgs 9 - 10, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112 rejection has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 – 11 & 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET.
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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
09/18/2026
