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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification (35 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-7, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersson (US 5026224).
Regarding claim 1, Andersson shows a drilling device (Figures 1A-C and see the description of preferred embodiments of the invention “a machine spindle …a milling cutter , a drill…”) for drilling a drill hole (see a toll bit 12, Figure 1B),
wherein the drilling device has a drill bit fitting (11) and a drill bit (12), wherein the drill bit fitting has a connection region (an end of the holder 11) for connection of the drilling device to a power drill (see the “machine spindle” above), and a receiving region a conical recess 25, Figure 1B) for receiving the drill bit (15A-15F of the tool 12), wherein the drill bit has a shank (15A-15F), which is received by the receiving region (see Figures 1A-1C), in the fitted state and is fixed releasably in the axial direction by an axial drill bit securing element (a bolt 19),
wherein the shank has a securing region (surfaces 15A-15F), wherein the securing region secures the drill bit against rotation relative to the drill bit fitting in the fitted state, wherein the securing region has a securing contour along its length (see Figures 1B, 1C), wherein the securing contour has a plurality of curved shank arc segments (3 corner segments in Figure 1C) and a plurality of shank connecting segments (segments where the reference “15A” is pointing to, Figure 1A), which connect the shank arc segments to one another at a plurality of shank connection points (see 3 corners that connect together, Figure 1C),
wherein all the shank arc segments (3 corners of the shank, Figure 1C) and all the shank connecting segments (segments between the corners) merge tangentially into one another at the shank connection points (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 2, Andersson shows that the shank connecting segments are of substantially identical design (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 3, Andersson shows that the shank arc segments each form part of an ellipse or of a circle and each have one center which is different from the other centers of the shank arc segments (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 4, Andersson shows that the securing region extends over only part of the length of the shank (Figure 1B), and wherein the shank has one or more further shank regions (the regions where the reference “17A” is pointing to, Figure 1A), each having a shank contour.
Regarding claim 5, Andersson shows that the axial drill bit securing element has a first positive engagement element (see the bolt 19, Figure 1B), which is arranged on the receiving region.
Regarding claim 6, Andersson shows that the shank has a drill bit stop (a shoulder or surface against the front surface 26, Figure 1B), and the receiving region has a receiving stop (26) of corresponding configuration, which rest against one another at least temporarily during fitting and/or rest against one another in the fitted state, with the result that the position of the shank in the receiving region is fixed in the axial direction (Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Andersson shows that the receiving region has a receiving contour (the recess) at least over part of its length, and wherein the receiving region.
Regarding claims 14-15, Andersson shows all of the limitations as stated in claims above. Please note that as these claims are written, it is just for a drill bit, not including a drilling device and a fitting.
Regarding claim 16, Andersson shows all of the limitations as stated in claims above. Please note that as this claim is written, it is just for a sleeve, not including a drilling device and a fitting, therefore, the sleeve can be read as a whole of the cylindrical housing 18, Figures 1A-1C.
Regarding claims 17-19, Andersson teaches a method of producing a drill bit (see its structures in claims above) which has the securing contour, is produced using a turning tool (see the machine spindle in claim 1 above), wherein the turning tool removes material in a direction transverse to a main axis of the shank,
wherein the part of the receiving region of the drill bit fitting which has the receiving contour is produced using a milling cutter (see the milling cutter in claim 1 above), wherein the milling cutter removes material in a direction transverse to a main axis of the receiving region, or
wherein the part of the mounting recess of the sleeve which has the sleeve securing contour is produced using a milling cutter (see the discussion of the milling cutter in claim 1 above), wherein the milling cutter removes material in a direction transverse to [[the]]a main axis of the mounting recess.
Regarding claim 20, Andersson shows that, in the fitted state, the securing region faces the drill bit fitting (Figure 1B), and the one or more further shank regions face away from the drill bit fitting (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
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 (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 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.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (US 5026224) in view of Emmerick (US 4632195).
Regarding claim 8, Andersson all of the limitations as stated above except a sleeve, wherein the drilling device has a mounting region, and wherein the sleeve has a mounting recess, and wherein, in the fitted state, the sleeve is mounted on the mounting region by the mounting recess and is fixed releasably in the axial direction by an axial sleeve securing element, as a further preference wherein the axial sleeve securing element has a second positive engagement element, which is arranged on the mounting region on the mounting recess.
Emmerick shows a drilling device (Figures 1-2 and Abstract) having a drill bit (36), a fitting member (sleeves 24, 22), and sleeve (a chuck 20, or 50), wherein the drilling device has a mounting region, and wherein the sleeve has a mounting recess, and wherein, in the fitted state, the sleeve is mounted on a mounting region of the fitting member by a mounting recess and is fixed releasably in the axial direction by an axial sleeve securing element (see Figures 1-2), as a further preference wherein an axial sleeve securing element has a second positive engagement element (39), which is arranged on the mounting region on the mounting recess.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the chuck or the sleeve, as taught by Emmerick to the drilling device of Andersson, in order to allow the drilling device coupling and transmitting rotation power to the drill bit.
Regarding claim 9, the modified drilling device of Andersson shows that the sleeve is designed as a spacing sleeve (see the extension 24 of Emmerick) for defining a particular drilling depth.
Regarding claim 10, the modified drilling device of Andersson shows that a sleeve securing contour (see the recess 56 of Emmerick) is of rotationally symmetrical configuration (Figures 1-2 of Emmerick).
Regarding claim 11, the modified drilling device of Andersson shows that the sleeve arc segments each form part of an ellipse or of a circle and each have one center which is different from the other centers of the sleeve arc segments (see the discussion in claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 12, the modified drilling device of Andersson shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 13, Vasudeva shows that the sleeve has a sleeve stop (a top end where the reference 39 is pointing to, Figures 1-2 of Emmerick), and the mounting region has a mounting stop (38 of Emmerick) of corresponding configuration, which, in the fitted state and/or during fitting, rest against one another at least temporarily, with the result that the position of the sleeve on the mounting region is fixed in the axial direction, and wherein the mounting stop is arranged at the end on an end face of the drill bit fitting which faces the drill bit (Figures 1-2 of Emmerick).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. See new references above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. drilling devices having arc segments of bit shanks (US 20120114434 A1; US 20080166198 A1; US 4361196 A, GB505727.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights