Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/553,942

DRILL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner
SNYDER, ALAN W
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Osg Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
561 granted / 679 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
715
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 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 4 and 5 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. Regarding claim 4, the limitation “when, in the flank… (emphasis added)” beginning at Line 26 is unclear. It raises the question whether the limitations following the clause are optional, and there is a possibility that the flank is not provided with these features. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. 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. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai (WO 2014118881) in view of Ono et al. (WO 2021024848, hereinafter ‘Ono’). Regarding claim 4, Takai discloses a drill 10 comprising a bar-shaped tool main body 17 to be rotated around a shaft center C. A discharge flute 18 is provided in a helical shape in an outer peripheral surface of the tool main body from a leading end portion toward a rear end portion thereof. A cutting edge 12 is formed at a ridge section between an inner face of the discharge flute oriented toward the front in a rotation direction of the tool main body and a flank 32/34 is formed at the leading end portion. An oil hole 22 is provided at the flank, the oil hole supplying a cutting fluid to the side of the cutting edge. A gash portion 52 is provided, a ridge line 12c between the gash portion and the flank extends from an inner end of the cutting edge toward an outer side in a radial direction while curving in a circular arc shape toward the front in the rotation direction and connected to the discharge flute (see e.g. Fig. 3). The oil hole is provided with a fan-shaped cross-section as a result of being surrounded by a front-side inner wall surface FH positioned to a front side in the rotation direction RT of the tool main body, a rear-side inner wall surface RH positioned to a rear side in the rotation direction of the tool main body and facing the front-side inner wall surface in a circumferential direction, an outer peripheral-side inner wall surface OH formed by a partial cylindrical surface centered on a center line of the tool main body and having a radius of curvature R1 corresponding to a radius of a circumscribed circle of the oil hole and an inner peripheral-side inner wall surface IH formed by a partial cylindrical surface centered on the center line of the tool main body and having a radius of curvature R2 corresponding to a radius of an inscribed circle of the oil hole and being smaller than the radius of curvature of the outer peripheral-side inner wall surface in the radial direction. In the flank, a reference line P extending from the shaft center of the tool main body toward the outer side in the radial direction is a first reference line (see Fig. 4). A reference line rotated by a first angle A/2 to the front in the rotation direction around the shaft center with respect to the first reference line is a second reference line (the line which FH lies on in Fig. 4). A reference line rotated by the first angle to the rear in the rotation direction around the shaft center with respect to the first reference line is a third reference line (the line which RH lies on in Fig. 4). The oil hole is provided between the second reference line and the third reference line and the front-side inner wall surface is disposed along the second reference line. An imaginary reference line rotated to the rear in the rotation direction around an intersection point between the inscribed circle and the first reference line by a second angle greater than the first angle with respect to the first reference line and facing the gash portion could be drawn on Fig. 4 of Takai (see annotated Fig. 4 below). PNG media_image1.png 420 676 media_image1.png Greyscale Takai does not disclose the rear-side inner wall surface being disposed along this fourth reference line. Ono discloses a similar drill, wherein in one embodiment (Fig. 9), a similar oil hole H1 is provided. This oil hole has a circular arc-shaped curved rear-side inner face (the side distributing coolant along FD5 in Fig. 9) which extends at least partially along a reference line rotated rearwardly in the tool rotation direction around a larger angle than the leading face of the oil hole (e.g. the side distributing coolant along FD2 in Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the rear-side inner wall surface of the oil hole of Takai along the fourth reference line at least at a portion thereof, curved in a circular arc shape to the same direction side as the gash portion toward the front in the rotational direction, at a position separated from the gash portion, as taught by Ono, in order to distribute coolant along a desired direction. Such a modification is merely a change in the shape of the oil hole, to a shape suggested by Ono, for the purpose of directing coolant to a desired direction, see also MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. Regarding claim 5, neither Takai nor Ono explicitly disclose the radius of curvature of the rear-side inner wall surface. However, optimizing the radius of curvature to be between 0.35D and 0.45D (D being the diameter of the drill) in order to arrive at the best balance of tool strength (discussed by Takai) and coolant distribution (discussed by Ono) would have been an obvious modification to make by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583036
Conduit Reamer
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576453
MACHINING SYSTEM AND CUTTING INSERT AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569953
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12544838
CUTTING ELEMENT AND THE USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539544
BORING TOOL AND CUTTING INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month