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 (34 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Massaki (JPH1119825A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Massaki shows a drill bit (Figures 1-5) comprising:
an apical end (an end opposite a biting part 2, Figure 1), a coronal end (the end of the biting part 2, Figure 5), a longitudinal axis (of the drill bit, Figure 1) extending between the apical end and the coronal end, a drill bit core (a central core or portion that three protrusions 4 extend thereform, Figures 2-4), and
a cutting portion (see the threads or three protrusion sections, Figures 1, 5) extending at least partially along the drill bit core;
wherein an outline of a cross-section of the cutting portion perpendicular to the longitudinal axis comprises at least one outermost point at a first radial distance (r1, Figures 3-4) from the longitudinal axis and at least one cutting point at a second radial distance (r2, Figures 3-4 below) from the longitudinal axis; and
wherein along a first part of the cutting portion, at a first cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 3 below), the second radial distance (r2) is smaller than the first radial distance (r1), and along a second part of the cutting portion, at a second cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 4) the second radial distance (r2) is “substantially equal” to the first radial distance (r1, compared to Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Massaki shows that the first part of the cutting portion (Figures 1 and 3) is positioned apically to the second part of the cutting portion (see Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Massaki shows that the drill bit further comprises a non-cutting portion (see the portion 2 that is not for cutting as seen in Figure 5) extending along the drill bit core, wherein along the non-cutting portion an outline of a cross-section of the drill bit core perpendicular to the longitudinal axis comprises at least one outermost point (any outer point on the portion 2) at a first radial distance from the longitudinal axis (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Massaki shows that the non-cutting portion (2) is positioned apically to the cutting portion (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Massaki shows a drill bit (see the discussion in claims 1-4 above) comprising:
“an apical end, a coronal end, a longitudinal axis extending between the apical end and the coronal end, a drill bit core, a cutting portion (3); and
a non-cutting portion (2), the cutting portion and the non-cutting portion extending along the drill bit core (Figure 5);
wherein along the cutting portion and the non-cutting portion an outline of a cross- section of the drill bit core perpendicular to the longitudinal axis comprises at least one outermost point at a first radial distance (r1) from the longitudinal axis, the outline of the cutting portion further comprising at least one cutting point at a second radial distance (r2) from the longitudinal axis,
wherein along a part of the cutting portion, the second radial distance is smaller than the first radial distance (Figure 3, the 2nd radial distance r2 is smaller than r1) such that points along the outline with a radial distance (where the reference “4”, Figure 2) greater than the second radial distance (r2, Figure 2 below) are not configured to cut bone tissue (see the discussion of the portion 2 above); and
wherein the non-cutting portion is positioned apically to the cutting portion” (see discussions of claims 1-4 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Massaki shows that the non-cutting portion (2) of the drill bit core includes a compression zone and a relaxation zone (as it is written, it is unclear what the compression zone and relaxation zones are, therefore, see figure 2, a groove 5 is a relaxation zone, and an outer surface of the portion 6 contacting the hole is a compression zone).
Regarding claim 8, Massaki shows that the outline of a cross-section along the non-cutting portion of the drill bit core and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is non-circular (see Figure 2 above).
Regarding claims 9-10, Massaki shows that the cutting portion (3) of the drill bit core includes a compression zone (protrusions 4) and a relaxation zone (the groove 5), wherein the cutting point is positioned within the compression zone (see the discussion in claims 1 and 5 above).
Regarding claim 11, Massaki shows that the outline of a cross-section along the cutting portion (3) of the drill bit core and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is non-circular (see Figures 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 12, Massaki shows that extending from the apical end towards the coronal end, the drill bit core further comprises a guiding portion (see Figure 1 below), the cross-section of the guiding portion perpendicular to the longitudinal axis being circular (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
334
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Massaki shows that the cross-section of the drill bit core perpendicular to the longitudinal axis has two or three pairs of outermost points (many points on the thread segment) and cutting points (see Figures 3-4 above), each pair comprising an outermost point and a cutting point (Figures 3-4 above).
Regarding claim 14, Massaki shows that in a predetermined direction of rotation of the drill bit, a location of the cutting point (see Figures 3-4, the point 7) changes from being located before the outermost point (4) to being located after the outermost point in an apical-coronal direction (this is inherent limitation because the outermost points are on the thread segments or spiral portions, it can be changed during the drill bit rotation).
Regarding claim 15, Massaki shows that a ratio between the first radial distance (r1) and the second radial distance (r2) between the cross-sections of the cutting portion (Figures 3-4 above) along the longitudinal axis changes (it is inherent limitation because the drill bit is tapered as seen in Figures 2-4).
Regarding claims 16-17, Massaki shows that the cutting portion (3) comprises at least one cutting flute (see a helical or spiral groove between the threads as seen Figures 1 and 5), wherein the at least one cutting flute extends helically around the drill bit core (Figures 1 and 5) with a first pitch (at near to the end).
Regarding claim 18, Massaki shows that along the longitudinal axis, the outermost points (4) of the cross-sections are located along a helical line having a second pitch (see Figures 3-4), wherein the first pitch and the second pitch differ from each other, the first pitch being smaller than the second pitch (see Figures 1 and 5, the pitch of the portion 2 is smaller than the pitch of the portion 3).
Regarding claim 19, Massaki shows that the drill bit further comprises at least one guiding thread (see the first thread where the reference 2 is pointing to, Figure 5) formed helically around the drill bit core and formed as a single thread.
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 the new art 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
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 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights