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 – 15. Claims 16 - 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026. 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. 2007/0160436 Vijitha Weerasunghe (‘Weerasunghe hereafter), App 10/566962, Filed 08/27/2004
JP 2021070139 Tsutomu et al. (‘Tsutomu hereafter), Filed 05/06/2021
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 20 are currently being examined.
Claims 16 - 20 have been withdrawn.
No Claims have been canceled.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
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, 4, 7, 8 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021070139 Tsutomu et al. (‘Tsutomu hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Tsutomu discloses all the claim limitations including: A drill (‘Tsutomu, #1 (drill for glass fiber reinforced substrates) for forming through holes in a glass fiber reinforced substrate, comprising:
a drill body (‘Tsutomu, #3) having a cutting edge part (‘Tsutomu, #3a) on a front end side of the drill body (‘Tsutomu, #3), and
a neck part (‘Tsutomu, #3b) on a base end side (‘Tsutomu, upper end in Fig 1) of the drill body (‘Tsutomu, #3) such that the cutting edge part (‘Tsutomu, #3a) has a larger diameter than the neck part (‘Tsutomu, #3b) and that the drill body (‘Tsutomu, #3) has a step formed between the cutting edge part and the neck part (‘Tsutomu, Translation Para 0014, “The cutting edge portion 3a has a cutting edge 5 and a tip flank 6 as in a normal drill. Although the tip flank 6 has a single surface in the illustrated example, it may have a multi-step surface lined up in the circumferential direction with respect to the axis.”),
wherein the drill body has a single continuous chip evacuation groove (4) (‘Tsutomu, Fig 2B, #4), and
the single continuous chip evacuation groove (‘Tsutomu, Figs 2A & 2B, #4) formed in the drill body (‘Tsutomu, #3) has a main groove (‘Tsutomu, Fig 2B, #4a) and a secondary groove (‘Tsutomu, Fig 2B, #4b) such that the main groove has an L-shaped cross section (‘Tsutomu, Fig 2A, shows #4 as an “L” shape in the region of #4a) and is extending from a front end of the cutting edge part (‘Tsutomu, Fig 1, front end is the lower portion) over the step to the neck part (‘Tsutomu, Translation Para 0014) and that the secondary groove (‘Tsutomu, Fig 2B, #4b) has a U-shaped cross section and a smaller groove width and a smaller groove depth than the main groove and is extending along the main groove from the front end of the cutting edge part over the step to the neck part and merging into the main groove at the neck part (‘Tsutomu, Figs 1, 2A & 2B, are orthographic projections showing the drill body, when #4b is projected onto Fig 2A, #4b will show a “U” shaped cross section, and a smaller groove width and smaller groove depth than the main groove).
Regarding Claim[s] 4, ‘Tsutomu discloses all the claim limitations including: cutting edge part (‘Tsutomu, #3a) of the drill body (‘Tsutomu, #3) has the front end (‘Tsutomu, Fig 1, front end is the lower portion) having a cutting edge (‘Tsutomu, #3a) and a leading relief surface positioned on a trailing side of the cutting edge in a cutting rotation direction of the drill (‘Tsutomu, Fig 2B), and the drill body is formed such that an included angle between a side wall part on one side connecting to the cutting edge and a side wall part on the other side connecting to the leading relief surface, which form the main groove, is in a range of 80 to 100 degrees in a cross section (‘Tsutomu, Figs 1, 2A (below) shows an angle of approximately 90 degree).
Regarding Claim[s] 7, ‘Tsutomu discloses all the claim limitations including: drill body has a drill core having a web taper,
WT=(W2−W1)/L,
in a range of 0.022 to 0.024 where W1 is a drill core front end part diameter, W2 is a drill core base part diameter, and L is a drill core length (‘Tsutomu, Translation Para 0016, “The web taper WT is obtained by the formula WT=(W2-W1)/L.” “Here, W1 is the diameter of the tip of the drill core, W2 is the diameter of the base of the drill core, and L is. the length of the drill core,” “The drill core tip diameter W1 ls the outer diameter of the cutting edge 3a - (the Up depth of the chip discharge groove 4) x 2, and the drill core base diameter W2 is the outer diameter of the margin 3b - (the chip discharge groove 4 base end depth) x 2.”
Translation Para 0017, “ln a conventional drill with only one continuous chip evacuation groove, for example, W1 = 0.020 mm, W2=0.106 mm, L=3.3 mm, and the web taper WT is 0.026, resulting in chip evacuation While the volume ratio of the grooves was 40.5%. in the drill 1 for glass fiber reinforced substrates of this embodiment, for example, W1=0.020 mm, W2=0.093 to 0.099 mm, L=3. At 3 mm, the web taper WT was between 0.022 and 0.024, resulting in a chip evacuation groove volume fraction of 42%.”
Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Tsutomu discloses all the claim limitations including: cutting edge part of the drill body has the front end having a cutting edge and a leading relief surface positioned on a trailing side of the cutting edge in a cutting rotation direction of the drill (‘Tsutomu, Translation Para 0012, “The drill for glass fiber reinforced substrates of this embodiment, indicated by reference numeral 1 in the figure, has a shank 2 that is gripped by a chuck or the like of a machine tool, and is arranged on the same axis as the shank 2 and is integrally connected to the shank 2. The drill body 3 has a cutting edge portion 3a on the distal side and a neck portion 3b on the proximal side having a smaller diameter than the cutting edge portion 3a, and is an undercut type, It is the outer diameter of the cutting edge portion 3a is for example. 0.17 mm, and the outer diameter of the neck portion 3b is for example 0.15 mm.”).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Tsutomu discloses all the claim limitations including: drill body is formed such that a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the one side is smaller than a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the other side (‘Tsutomu, Figs 1, 2A & 2B, are orthographic projections showing the drill body, when #4b is projected onto Fig 2A, #4b will show one side is smaller than a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the other side.)
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2007/0160436 Vijitha Weerasunghe (‘Weerasunghe hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Weerasunghe discloses all the claim limitations including: A drill (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below), #10 (drill)) for forming through holes in a glass fiber reinforced substrate (The limitation “for forming through holes in a glass fiber reinforced substrate,” is an intended use limitation, see below) comprising:
a drill body (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2, system of #18 (shank length) and #20 (body length)) having a cutting edge part on a front end side of the drill body (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2, near #36 (rake face) and system of #26 (leading edge), #34 (chisel edge), #30 (tip) and #32 (tip)), and
a neck part (3b, Fig 2) on a base end side (upper end in FIG. 1) of the drill body (3) (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below)) such that the cutting edge part (3a) has a larger diameter than the neck part (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below), shows the cutting edge part has a larger diameter than the neck part) and that the drill body has a step (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below)) formed between the cutting edge part and the neck part (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below)),
wherein the drill body has a single continuous chip evacuation groove (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below) channel for chip evacuation near #22), and
the single continuous chip evacuation groove formed in the drill body has a main groove and a secondary groove (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below) channel for chip evacuation near #22 show two helical flutes forming a single continuous channel system)
such that the main groove has an L-shaped cross section (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 3 (below)) and is extending from a front end of the cutting edge part over the step to the neck part (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 3 (below) groove extends from the front end to near the base end) and that the secondary groove (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below) near #24) has a U-shaped cross section (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below) as shown in Fig 3, a convex “U” shaped cross section) and a smaller groove width and a smaller groove depth than the main groove (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 3 (below)) and is extending along the main groove from the front end of the cutting edge part over the step to the neck part and merging into the main groove at the neck part (‘Weerasunghe, Fig 2 (below) shows merger near neck part).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 2 with the limitations of claim 2 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the drill body is formed such that the secondary groove is merging into the main groove within a range of 30% to 50% of a total length of the drill body, measured from a front end of the drill body.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Tsutomu and ‘Weerasunghe).
‘Tsutomu and ‘Weerasunghe do not teach a length range where the secondary groove is merging into the main groove of the drill body.
Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claims 9, 10 & 12. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 3 is 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 3 with the limitations of claim 3 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the drill body is formed such that the main groove has a width in a range of 0.02 mm to 0.25 mm and that the secondary groove has a width in a range of 0.02 mm to 0.12 mm.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Tsutomu and ‘Weerasunghe).
‘Tsutomu and ‘Weerasunghe do not teach a main groove width of 0.02 – 0.25 mm and the secondary groove having a width of 0.02 to 0.12 mm.
Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claims 13 & 14. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 5 is 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 5 with the limitations of claim 5, 4 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the drill body is formed such that a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the one side is smaller than a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the other side.
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Tsutomu and ‘Weerasunghe).
‘Tsutomu and ‘Weerasunghe do not teach the drill body is formed such that a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the one side is smaller than a cross-sectional width of the side wall part on the other side.
Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claim 6. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
[AltContent: textbox (Step)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Front End Side)][AltContent: textbox (Base End Side)][AltContent: textbox (Neck Part on base end of drill
body)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
529
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2007/0160436 FIGURE 2
[AltContent: textbox (Main Groove)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Convex “U” shaped cross section, with smaller groove depth than main groove near #22)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inverted “L” shape)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
352
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2007/0160436 FIGURE 2
[AltContent: textbox (Chip Evacuation Groove)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Secondary Groove)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main groove)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
212
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
JP 202107139 FIGURE 2A
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
02/13/2026