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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parendo et al. (US 11,691,203) in view of Redondi (US 2021/0252686) and Ison et al. (US 8,388,280).
Regarding to claim 1, Parendo et al. discloses a drill comprising: a cutting section (body 18, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.); a drive section (shank 12, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.) directed away from the cutting section (18) [as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.], the drive section (12) having, in at least one section, a polygonal cross-sectional geometry (hex-shaped, as described in column 3 lines 10-13 and can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.).
Parendo et al. disclose an apparatus configured to machine a metallic workpiece (sheet metal, as described in column 2 lines 53-55 in Parendo et al.). However, Parendo et al. does not explicitly disclose the drill being a metal drill having at least two different functional coatings formed at least in regions, the at least two functional coatings being configured to permit machining of a metallic workpiece in a manner adapted to a respective application material. Redondi, however discloses a metal drill (high-speed steel, metal matrix, hard metal, as described in paragraph 0003-0005 in Redondi) having at least two different functional coatings (38, 38a-38g, 40, 40a-40g, as described in paragraph 0013-0017 and 0038-0053 in Redondi) formed at least in regions, the at least two functional coatings 38, 38a-38g, 40, 40a-40g). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parendo et al. to include at least two different coatings, as taught by Redondi, which would be configured to permit machining of a metallic workpiece in a manner adapted to a respective application material, to increase hardness, durability and the life of the tool [as described in the abstract of Redondi].
However, Parendo et al. modified by Redondi does not explicitly disclose each functional coating having different physical properties than other functional coatings of the at least two different coatings. Ison et al., however, discloses a step drill bit apparatus having functional coatings (a first coating of a first material and a second coating of a second material, as described in the abstract of Ison et al.) having different physical properties (different material having different physical properties, as described in the abstract of Ison et al.) than other functional coatings of the at least two different coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Parendo et al. and Redondi to include having at least two functional coatings having different physical properties, as taught by Ison et al., to provided benefits of operating at a cooler temperature, creating smoother holes, reducing friction during drilling and increasing the bit life [as described in column 3 lines 25-47 in Ison et al.].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include coatings, including the instance of having a plurality of different coatings, as a known technique used to obtain desired material properties, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, wherein the at least two functional coatings are designed to increase a surface hardness of the metal drill [as described in abstract of Redondi].
6. Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, having a first and second functional coating. Parendo et al. further discloses the functional coatings formed with titanium nitride and aluminum titanium nitride [as described in column 7 lines 50-65 in Parendo et al.].
7. Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, wherein the cutting section (18 in Parendo et al.) has a cutting head (tip 21, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.), as with two cutting edges (two first chisel surfaces 24, as described in column 3 lines 59-column 4 line 1 and can be seen from Figures 1-5 in Parendo et al.) and a guide section (transition portion 16, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.) is arranged between the cutting section (18 in Parendo et al.) and the drive section (12 in Parendo et al.) [as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.].
8. Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 4, wherein the cutting section (18 in Parendo et al.) has two helical flutes (a first and second flute 46, as can be seen from Figure 4 in Parendo et al.).
9. Regarding to claim 6, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 4, wherein the metal drill has an approximately constant diameter at least in a region of the cutting head (21) and the cutting section (18) [note that a portion of 21 and a portion of 18 are approximately a constant diameter at a portion, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.].
10. Regarding to claim 7, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 4, wherein the cutting head (21) is configured as a cone shell ground or a surface ground [as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.].
11. Regarding to claim 8, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, wherein the metal drill is formed of a high-speed steel [high-speed steel, as described in paragraph 0003 of Redondi].
12. Regarding to claim 9, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, having the drive section (12 in Parendo et al.) and the cutting section (18 in Parendo et al.). The recited limitation of being “roll-rolled, forged, and/or at least partially machined from solid” as recited in claim 9 line 2, is interpreted as being a product by process limitation only requiring the structure of the finished product resulting from the claimed process. The structure resulting from the recited process is interpreted as including the drive section and the cutting section. The prior art of Parendo et al. discloses the drive section (12) and the cutting section (18). The prior art therefore discloses the structure of the finished product resulting from the recited process, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Parendo et al.
13. Regarding to claim 10, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the according to claim 1, further comprising a unique marking (laser etching, color, as described in column 7 lines 51- 55 in Parendo et al.) identifying a metallic workpiece the metal drill is configured to machine [as described in column 3 lines 15-21 and column 7 lines 51-55 in Parendo et al.].
14. Regarding to claim 11, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, wherein the at least one section of the drive section (12) has a hexagonal cross-sectional geometry [as described in column 3 lines 10-13 in Parendo et al.].
15. Regarding to claim 12, the combination of Parendo et al., Redondi, and Ison et al. discloses the metal drill according to claim 1, wherein a first functional coating of the at least two functional coatings is formed of a different material than a second functional coating of the at least two functional coatings [as described in the abstract of Ison et al.].
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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
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 NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712720993. 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.
/NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights