CTFR 18/512,124 CTFR 82072 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 1, 5-8,15, 18, and 19 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2655452 A1 (Brabetz herein) as set forth in the action dated 2/4/2026, in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (figure 1 as submitted; AAPA herein or “admitted prior art”) Re garding claim 1, Brabetz discloses a drill bit comprising: a body having a first end (tip; see figure 2, inter alia) and a second end (some portion above the tip is per se the second end) a shank located at the first end (the portion being driven is a shank per se—and it is discussed as being driven, implicitly disclosing a shank, as a shank is needed to be driven); and a cutting head located at the second end (figure 2), the cutting head including a tip (see tip visible, figure 2), a first cutting edge extending from the tip at a first angle, and a second cutting edge extending from the tip at a second angle, the second angle being different than the first angle (marked W1 and W2, figure 2). Braebetz allegedly lacks the rotation axis defined by the drill being aligned with the tip. Applicant admits that aligning the tip of a drill with the rotation axis thereof (or the central axis thereof) is known: PNG media_image1.png 819 387 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to align the central rotational axis of Brabets with the tip as noted to be “prior art” by applicant, since doing so is routine in the art, and would not behave in any unexpected way requiring any undue experimentation to achieve a satisfactory result of drilling. See KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ____(2007) slip op at 13, lines 22-34 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious” Claims 5-9 are also plainly anticipated by Brabetz—the angles etc. being referenced explicitly in figure 1-5 and discussed therein. Claim 15, 18 and 19 are also plainly anticipated by Brabetz, as noted above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 2-4, 10-14, 16 and 20 are rej ected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bra betz in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) as set forth above regarding claims 1, 15, etc. in view of US 5,184,689 and US 2008/0075547 as set forth previously and incorporated herein from the action dated 2/4/26. Reg arding claims 2-4, 10-14, 16 and 20 Brabetz discloses the claimed subject matter, as plainly shown in the figures, and as noted above, except Brabetz lacks a showing of the use of inserts/ cutting head made from a different material—which is a common addition to cutting and drilling tools, since the cutting edge itself is desired to be harder for being longer wearing (more durable). See US 5,184,689 discussing the reasons for using inserts in drills as reducing the expense of using such hard (and expensive) material—like tungsten carbide: “The insert 18 in accordance with the present invention may be comprised of a composite material, the components of which may be uniformly distributed throughout the insert or alternatively, the ratio of the components may vary from one region to another within the insert, such as from the insert surface to the insert core. A preferred material for the insert 18 is a cemented tungsten carbide containing about 5-15 wt % cobalt as a binder, optionally with other refractory materials, such as cubic refractory transition metal carbides, as additives. The grain size of the tungsten carbide may vary from fine (e.g. about 1 micron), providing a harder insert, to coarse (e.g. about 12 micron), providing a tougher insert, depending on the intended use, the carbide to binder ratio, and the degree of fracture toughness desired. The inserts according to the invention may be utilized in various mine tool equipment according to the methods commonly accepted. Normally, the drill bit 10 containing the insert 18 will be fastened to a standard drill rod, which will be positioned to drill a hole in a work surface, and the bit 10 will be rotated at about 250-600 rpm and about 1000-10,000 lb thrust for a time sufficient to drill the desired hole in the work surface.” Relatedly, US 2008/0075547 also discusses the use of carbide inserts in drills, for the same reasons as ‘689 reference above: “[0025] The tool shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 includes a basic body in the form of a drill body 1, as well as two replaceable cutting inserts, one of which is a center insert 2, and the other a peripheral cutting insert 3. The drill body 1 includes a front part 4 in the form of a shank, as well as a rear part 5, which in this case is thicker than front part 4 and is for mounting in a machine, which can set the tool in rotation. The cutting inserts 2, 3 are arranged at the front end 6 of the drill body. The drill body 1 may be, but does not need to be, solid and manufactured from, for instance, steel, while the cutting inserts 2, 3 are manufactured from a harder and more wear-resistant material, such as cemented carbide.” It would have been obvious to add a cemented carbide or tungsten carbide insert into the leading drilling edge portions of Brabetz to achieve a longer wearing drill (harder) with a low and acceptable cost—due to the nature of providing an ‘insert’ rather than a whole solid shank of WC. The ‘547 reference further reinforces the teachings in the art regarding material choices, and makes it plain that selection of steel as a uniform base and shank would be expected, even in the event of adding WC inserts for the cutting tips of a drill. Regarding claim 4. The art shows the obviousness of selecting the body, the shank, and the cutting head to be formed as a monolithic body (this is true in Brabetz, as seen in the several figures therein, and the discussion of the monolithic body is also noted in the ‘547 reference, as cited above) Regarding claim 16, as seen in the cited references, the addition of the inserts as shown therein clearly renders the claimed subject matter of “includes fixing a cutting insert having the tip, the first cutting edge, and the second cutting edge to the cutting head” To be obvious. Regarding claim 20, as is apparent in the formations of ‘547 or ‘689 references, the method of assembling as shown therein would clearly have the cutting head formed separately and coupled to the body. Indeed the ‘547 reference explicitly noted the insert is replaceable . 07-22-aia AIA Claim(s) 17 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brabet z in view of US 5,184,689 and US 2008/0075547 as appl ied to claims 2-4, 10-1 4, 16 and 20 above, a nd further in view of 2003/0 185640 and US 7,163,363 as set forth previously and incorporated herein from the action dated 2/4/26. Regard ing claim 17, The references do not explicitly discuss the cutting head includes first forming each of the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge extending at the first angle and then machining the second cutting edge to extend from the tip at the second angle. Because carbides are typically very hard—they are not easy to machine in situ—and generally they would be fully sharpened before placement. However, it would have been obvious to sharpen or dress a blade once in use—this is common. Since the point of Brabetz is to have different angles for the leading edges, the resharpening of either would lead to the stated method as a matter of course. For example, the ‘640 reference, 2003/0185640 discusses the fact that carbide drills are known to be re-sharpened: “ [0004]…. even tungsten carbide is abraded fairly rapidly by abrasive work pieces such as printed circuit boards containing glass fibers. Thus, carbide bits must be periodically re-sharpened or re-pointed to maintain hole tolerances, although less frequently than steel bits. Therefore, even though tungsten carbide drill bits last longer than all-steel bits, downtimes associated with re-sharpening and replacing carbide drill bits is still a problem.” This evidence is corroborated by US 7,163,363: “The following would not constitute a departure from the context of the invention as defined in the appended claims: if a modification were to be made to the number of dust evacuation grooves formed in the body of the drill bit or the configuration of the head of this drill bit and of its carbide insert, or even if this insert were to be omitted; if a modification were to be made to the number of facets delimiting said grooves, and to the shapes of these facets, which can be simple or complex, spread out in the lengthwise or widthwise direction, flat or concave or convex, etc. if the facets were to be joined together with any radius of curvature ranging from a zero value (corresponding to a sharp edge) to high values; if the facets and their connections were to be produced by any machining or forming processes; if this drill bit were to be destined for and adapted to the drilling of all types of materials: stone, concrete, metal, etc.” Taken together, it suggests that machining in situ, while not especially favored for carbide inserts, the choice of machining or sharpening after insertion is within the level of ordinary skill, and can be selected for the plain reason of permitting re-sharpening or permitting precise manufacture- which ‘machining’ is noted as an acceptable method for making drill type components (‘363). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Brabetz to be made by a method including the step of machining one of the edges—since machining is known in the art to be a way to make something like an insert to be the geometry that is desired—and Brabetz shows that having a particular dual angle geometry is desired—so sharpening or resharpening by a step of machining to achieve the form known in Braebetz is obvious . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5 /4/26 h ave been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A pplicant alleges that changing the drill bit of Brabetz to have a drill axis aligned at the tip would make it cease to function—but provides no evidence that it would fail to drill . The adjustment of the drill axis is clearly within the level of ordinary skill, and the adjustment would not prevent the drill from functioning as a drill . Applicant provides no evidence that the drill so adjusted would fail to work. As such, the claims are obvious in light of the new combination required by applicant’s modification to the claims . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time. 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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. SEAN M. MICHALSKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3724 /SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/512,124 Page 2 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/512,124 Page 3 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/512,124 Page 4 Art Unit: 3724
Prosecution Insights