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
Claims 5-8, 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
Examiner notes that claim 8 has been determined to be withdrawn since para. 57 states the following: “In the exemplary embodiments of FIGS. 2, 3, and 4, the structural elements 20 are each configured as a peak. The surface 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 34, 36, 38 therefore has a base face from which the structural elements 20 extend and generally project. By contrast, a design is shown e.g., in FIG. 5 in which the structural elements 20 are each configured as a valley, i.e., projecting into the drill head 4, so to speak.” And thus claim 8 which recites “the structural elements are each peaks” represents non-elected embodiments and is withdrawn. Additionally, claim 7 is has been determined to be withdrawn since it is not possible for these channels to cover the entire surface or else the channels would not even exist.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species D (Fig. 5), claims 1-4,9-16 in the reply is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:For consistency, “the surface” should read –the at least one surface--. 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 2, 4, 11-16 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 2 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "divide it". It is unclear what ‘it’ is referring to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "divide it". It is unclear what ‘it’ is referring to.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "so that it". It is unclear what ‘it’ is referring to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "so that it". It is unclear what ‘it’ is referring to.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the main cutting edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein it". It is unclear what ‘it’ is referring to.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schmid (DE 102016111934 A1).
Re Claim 1, Schmid discloses a drill head 16, comprising at least one surface, with a number of structural elements 28, wherein [the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method] (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5). Furthermore, the claimed phase "the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Schmid' s product meets the claimed structural limitations.
Re Claim 2, as best understood, Schmid discloses the surface is a chip face directly adjoining the main cutting edge (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 3, Schmid discloses the surface 16 is an open face, a grooved face of a chip flute, a point, or a lateral face (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 9, Schmid discloses the structural elements are each valleys (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 10, Schmid discloses the structural elements are each channels (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 15, Schmid discloses the structural elements are arranged adjacent to one another along the main cutting edge (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 16, as best understood, Schmid discloses it is manufactured integrally (Abstract; Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-5). Furthermore, the claimed phase "it is manufactured integrally" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Schmid’s product meets the claimed structural limitations.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Gozeling (US 4,456,083).
Re Claim 1, Gozeling discloses a drill head 3, comprising at least one surface, with a number of structural elements (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below), [wherein the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method] (Fig. 1a-1b; col. 3, line 10- col. 4, line 5; also note forging process: col. 2, lines 64-68). Furthermore, the claimed phase "the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Gozeling’s product meets the claimed structural limitations. Also note forging process: col. 2, lines 64-68 which is a primary forming manufacturing method.
Re Claim 2, as best understood, Gozeling discloses the surface is a chip face directly adjoining the main cutting edge (Fig. 1a-1b; col. 3, line 10- col. 4, line 5).
Re Claim 3, Gozeling discloses the surface is an open face, a grooved face of a chip flute, a point, or a lateral face (Fig. 1a-1b; col. 3, line 10- col. 4, line 5).
Re Claim 9, Gozeling discloses the structural elements are each valleys (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below).
Re Claim 10, Gozeling discloses the structural elements are each channels (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below).
Re Claim 11, as best understood, Gozeling discloses the structural elements are guided up to the main cutting edge and divide it into a plurality of sub-sections (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below).
Re Claim 12, as best understood, Gozeling discloses the structural elements are guided up to the main cutting edge and divide it into a plurality of sub-sections (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below).
Re Claim 13, as best understood, Gozeling discloses the structural elements terminate before the main cutting edge, so that it is uninterrupted.
Re Claim 14, as best understood, Gozeling discloses the structural elements terminate before the main cutting edge, so that it is uninterrupted (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below).
Re Claim 15, as best understood, Gozeling discloses the structural elements are arranged adjacent to one another along the main cutting edge (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below).
Re Claim 16, as best understood, Gozeling discloses [it is manufactured integrally] (Fig. 1a-1b; channels 6; OR upper channel 4 and larger diameter channel below; Also note forging process: col. 2, lines 64-68). Furthermore, the claimed phase "it is manufactured integrally" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Gozeling’s product meets the claimed structural limitations. Also note forging process: col. 2, lines 64-68.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Haglund (US 2,641,446).
Re Claim 1, Haglund discloses a drill head 23, comprising at least one surface, with a number of structural elements (Fig. 1, 3; channels 19, 22; col. 3, lines 51-60), [wherein the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method] (Fig. 1, 3; col. 3, lines 51-60). Furthermore, the claimed phase "the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Gozeling’s product meets the claimed structural limitations. Also note forging process: col. 2, lines 64-68 which is a primary forming manufacturing method.
Re Claim 2, as best understood, Haglund discloses the surface is a chip face directly adjoining the main cutting edge (Fig. 1, 3).
Re Claim 3, Haglund discloses the surface is an open face, a grooved face of a chip flute, a point, or a lateral face (Fig. 1-3).
Re Claim 9, Haglund discloses the structural elements are each valleys (Fig. 1, 3; channels 19, 22; col. 3, lines 51-60).
Re Claim 10, Haglund discloses the structural elements are each channels (Fig. 1, 3; channels 19, 22; col. 3, lines 51-60).
Re Claim 13, as best understood, Haglund discloses the structural elements terminate before the main cutting edge, so that it is uninterrupted (Fig. 1, 3; channels 19, 22; col. 3, lines 51-60).
Re Claim 14, as best understood, Haglund discloses the structural elements terminate before the main cutting edge, so that it is uninterrupted (Fig. 1, 3; channels 19, 22; col. 3, lines 51-60).
Re Claim 16, as best understood, Haglund discloses [it is manufactured integrally] (Fig. 1, 3). Furthermore, the claimed phase "it is manufactured integrally" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Haglund’s product meets the claimed structural limitations.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Barker (US 4,137,002).
Re Claim 1, Barker discloses a drill head 14, comprising at least one surface, with a number of structural elements 58, 60 (Fig. 1-3, 5) wherein [the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method] (Fig. 1-3, 5). Furthermore, the claimed phase "the structural elements are manufactured by an additive or primary forming manufacturing method" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Barker' s product meets the claimed structural limitations.
Re Claim 2, Barker discloses the surface 32 is a chip face directly adjoining the main cutting edge 66 (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 3, Barker discloses the surface 32 is an open face, a grooved face of a chip flute, a point, or a lateral face (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 4, Barker discloses the structural elements are each configured as a chip breaker for breaking chips generated by the main cutting edge (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 9, Barker discloses the structural elements are each valleys (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 10, Barker discloses the structural elements are each channels (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 11, Barker discloses the structural elements are guided up to the main cutting edge and divide it into a plurality of sub-sections (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 12, Barker discloses the structural elements are guided up to the main cutting edge and divide it into a plurality of sub-sections (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 13, Barker discloses the structural elements terminate before the main cutting edge, so that it is uninterrupted (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 14, Barker discloses the structural elements terminate before the main cutting edge, so that it is uninterrupted (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 15, Barker discloses the structural elements are arranged adjacent to one another along the main cutting edge (Fig. 1-3, 5).
Re Claim 16, Barker discloses [it is manufactured integrally] (Fig. 1-3, 5). Furthermore, the claimed phase "it is manufactured integrally" is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. Barker’s product meets the claimed structural limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights