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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group 1 claims 1, 3 - 11. Claims 2, 12 - 17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Applicant’s reasons for the traverse are because: “no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application.”
However, Group 1 is classified in B23B2251/201, Group 2 is classified in B23B51/00, and Group 3 is classified in B23B2252/56 as such the groupings are classified in distinct classes and would cause a serious search burden.
Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive. The restriction is made FINAL.
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.
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 17 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Claims 2, 12 - 17 have been withdrawn.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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, Claim 1, ln 8 – 9 “wherein a width of the base area is at least 30% smaller than a distance of the side faces,” and Figs 3, 8, 9 &11 do not shows the base area #GF to be smaller than the side faces #45. Claims shall be examined as best understood.
Claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6, ln 1 – 2, “the curved connecting surface is curved as concave or convex.” Is not shown in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: items BBF (Fig 10), BGF (Fig 8), BSF (Fig 8), BSTF (Fig 8), D27 (Fig 9), FGF (Fig 8), are not recited in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 – 16 are 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 1, ln 8 - 9 recites: “wherein a width of the base area is at least 30% smaller than a distance of the side faces,” is unclear because the base area is a unit measured in length ^2 and the distance of the side faces is a length dimension.
It is unclear regarding the claim limitation how an area can be mathematically compared to length in size. Further, the figures do not show the base as a length to be smaller than the sides.
Claim 1, ln 5 recites: “the two indentations having two substantially parallel side faces and a base area,” is unclear because “substantially parallel” has no terms of degree and the specification does not provide any measure in a standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree.
(MPEP 2173.05(b) II REFERENCE TO AN OBJECT THAT IS VARIABLE MAY RENDER A CLAIM INDEFINITE “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.”)
Claims shall be examined as best understood.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2007/0110529 Lothar Kuensel (‘Kuenzel 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 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
wherein a width of the base area is at least 30% smaller than a distance of the side faces (‘Kuenzel, as best understood, each of the lengths of the side walls of the two indentations, are approximately 30% smaller than the length of the base).
Regarding Claim[s] 3, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations including: at least one flat connecting surface is provided between a side surface and the base area (‘Kuenzel, Fig 2 (below), shows #9 (rear surface/ base area) to be the flat surface).
Regarding Claim[s] 4, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations including: at least one relief groove is provided between 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] 7, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations including: the indentations 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.)
Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations including: 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 angh to be between 100 and 118 degree).
Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations including: center of the cooling lubricant channel lies in the middle between the flat connecting surfaces or in the middle between the at least single-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.)
Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Kuenzel 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).
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 5 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] 5, ‘Kuenzel discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: least a single curved connecting surface is provided between a side surface and the base area.
However, ‘Fabiano teaches: Figs 2 &19, show #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 curved connecting surface is curved as concave or convex.
However, ‘Haenle teaches: Fig 1, 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 further in view of U.S. 2021/0245268 Schur et al. (‘Schur hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Kuenzel 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°, or is equal to 115°.
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
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.
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
06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights