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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(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) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuzzi et al. (US 20100067994 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Nuzzi et al. discloses a drilling tool (50) for drilling machining, comprising: at least one major cutting edge (cutting insert 60 is a major cutting edge, fig. 4 or alternatively 94 and/or 92 of insert 80); a second cutting edge (104) that is provided on an outer side of a tool radial direction of the major cutting edge; a third cutting edge (100 or 92 and/or chip evacuating grooves/flutes 62/70) that is provided on the outer side of the tool radial direction of the second cutting edge; a first honing portion that is formed at the major cutting edge; a second honing portion that is formed at the second cutting edge; and a third honing portion that is formed at the third cutting edge, wherein a honing size of the third honing portion is larger than a honing size of the first honing portion, wherein the drilling tool is a head- exchangeable drill that includes a body (52/54) and a head (56/ drilling insert 60/80) that is removable from the body, and the major cutting edge, the second cutting edge, and the third cutting edge are formed at the head ([0021-0038], claim 1 figs. 1-13).
Regarding claim 2, Nuzzi et al. discloses a honing size of the second honing portion is larger than the honing size of the first honing portion ([0028-0031], claim 11).
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 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nuzzi et al. (US 20100067994 A1) in view of FUJISAWA (JP 2023068305 A) and further in view of SAGARA (US 20190061016 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 5. Nuzzi et al. teaches modifying the honing sizes for the particular needs but fails to disclose having a honing size of the second honing portion is equal to the honing size of the first honing portion and the honing size is a width of each of the first honing portion, the second honing portion, and the third honing portion.
FUJISAWA teaches drills 10 and 20 having a honing size that is a width of each of a first honing portion, a second honing portion, and a third honing portion ([0053-0090], figs. 5-12).
SAGARA also teaches a cutting tool (1) having a honing size of the second honing portion is equal to the honing size of the first honing portion and/or the honing size is a width of each of the first honing portion, the second honing portion, and the third honing portion (two cutting edges 20 the same with honing surface 21, [0027-0028, 0044], figs. 1-12).
Given the teachings of Nuzzi et al. to have honing sizes for the particular needs, it 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 to modify the honing sizes of the cutting surfaces with having a honing size of the second honing portion is equal to the honing size of the first honing portion and the honing size is a width of each of the first honing portion, the second honing portion, and the third honing portion to have precise chip removal, reduce resistance more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece) and/or for cutting path purposes as taught by FUJISAWA and SAGARA.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-8 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a drilling tool for drilling machining comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, at least one major cutting edge; a second cutting edge that is provided on an outer side of a tool radial direction of the major cutting edge; a third cutting edge that is provided on the outer side of the tool radial direction of the second cutting edge; a first honing portion that is formed at the major cutting edge; a second honing portion that is formed at the second cutting edge; and a third honing portion that is formed at the third cutting edge, wherein a honing size of the third honing portion is larger than a honing size of the first honing portion, wherein a honing size of the second honing portion is equal to the honing size of the first honing portion, wherein a point angle of the third cutting edge is 600 to 120°. Though Nuzzi et al. US 20100067994 A1 teaches having three cutting surfaces/portions that are honed, it would not be obvious to modify a honing size of the third honing portion to larger than a honing size of the first honing portion, wherein a honing size of the second honing portion is equal to the honing size of the first honing portion and wherein a point angle of the third cutting edge is 600 to 120°and one of ordinary skill would recognize that having a honing sizes changed with the point of angle of the third cutting edge would require modifying the other two cutting surfaces and third point angle resulting in the unexpected result of reducing damage to a shoulder portion and reducing cutting resistance, reducing blade wear and burr generation during drilling. Having the cutting edges formed for reducing damage to a shoulder portion and reducing cutting resistance, reducing blade wear and burr generation during drilling improves the performance of the drill bit during a drilling process.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: see form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731