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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 30 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden to examine the non-elected invention. This is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction was done under 37 CFR 1.475 (a), which does not have a burden requirement for lack of unity, only a lack of a special technical feature. However, claim 13 will be considered for rejoinder if claim 1 is amended to be allowable.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 30 July 2026.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein each of the coolant ducts have an upstream end and a downstream end" in lines 2-3. However, there is already antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claim 1, making it unclear whether this limitation refers to the same upstream and downstream ends or different ones. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that this limitation refers to the same upstream and downstream ends as those in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okumura (JP 2013-27962 A).
Regarding claim 1, Okumura discloses a drill body 10 of an indexable insert drill 1, the drill body being elongated and comprising: a rear end 3 and an opposite front end 2, wherein a central longitudinal axis S1 of the drill body extends between the rear end and the front end of the drill body; a shank portion 13 located at the rear end of the drill body and configured for attachment to a machine tool; a head portion (not labeled, see figure 1) located at the front end of the drill body; at least a first chip flute 12a and a second chip flute 12b extending alongside of each other along a part of the drill body from the head portion towards the shank portion, the first and second chip flutes being separated from each other in the circumferential direction of the drill body by intermediate ribs 4 formed in the drill body and extending alongside of the chip flutes, wherein each first and second chip flute and each rib extend in a helically curved path along the associated part of the drill body (see figure 1) a first insert seat 11 configured to receive a first cutting insert 100 and located at a transition between the first chip flute and a front face 2 of the drill body (see figure 1); a second insert seat 11 configured to receive a second cutting insert 100 and located at a transition between the second chip flute and the front face of the drill body (see figure 1); and coolant ducts 51/52 arranged in and extending along a respective one of said ribs, wherein each coolant duct extends in a helically curved path along at least a part of the associated rib (see figure 6), and wherein each coolant duct has an upstream end with an inlet opening 51 facing the rear end of the drill body and a downstream end with an outlet opening 52 in the head portion, wherein each coolant duct has a cross-sectional area that varies in the axial direction of the coolant duct such that it has a smaller cross-sectional area at its outlet opening (r2) than at its inlet opening (r1).
Regarding claim 4, Okumura discloses wherein each of the coolant ducts 51/52 have an upstream end 51 and a downstream end 52, and wherein the coolant ducts are located closer to each other at their the upstream ends than at the downstream ends (see figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Okumura discloses wherein the coolant ducts 51/52 extend in a respective helically curved path along a periphery of an imaginary cone that widens as seen in a direction from upstream ends 51of the coolant ducts towards downstream ends 52 thereof (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Okumura discloses wherein the inlet openings 51 of the coolant ducts 51/52 are located at the same or essentially same radial distance from the longitudinal axis S1 of the drill body 10 (see figure 5e).
Regarding claim 7, Okumura discloses wherein the outlet opening 52 of each coolant duct 51/52 is arranged in the front face 2 of the drill body 10 (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Okumura discloses wherein the coolant ducts 51/52 are equal in length and equal in cross-sectional area at the inlet openings 51 and also at their the outlet openings 52, wherein the cross-sectional area of the coolant ducts varies in a same manner along an extension of different coolant ducts such that the cross-sectional area of one coolant duct at any axial distance from the inlet opening of the coolant duct is the same as the cross-sectional area of another coolant duct or each one of the other coolant ducts at the same axial distance from the inlet opening thereof the latter (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Okumura discloses wherein at least one of the coolant ducts 51/52 has a cross-sectional shape that varies at least along a part of its extension (varies between 51 and 52, see figure 5).
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 of this title, 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (JP 2013-27962 A) in view of Brunner (US 2018/0133809 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Okumura discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Okumura does not disclose wherein each coolant duct has a continuously decreasing cross-sectional area, at least along a part of its extension, as seen in a direction from an upstream end to a downstream end thereof, or wherein each coolant duct has a continuously decreasing cross-sectional area as seen from an upstream end to a downstream end thereof. Brunner teaches the use of a drill body 10 that comprises a central coolant duct 22 that has a continuously decreasing cross-sectional area as seen from an upstream end to a downstream end thereof (see figure 2) for the purpose of continually increasing the pressure of cooling fluid as it approaches coolant outlets 30 so that the flow volume of coolant is increased. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the coolant ducts of Okumura with the continuously decreasing cross-sectional area as taught by Brunner in order to increase the amount of coolant applied to the cutting edges and workpiece during a drilling operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (JP 2013-27962 A) in view of Mao (US 11,135,659).
Regarding claim 8, Okumura discloses wherein the first and second insert seats 11 are located at mutually different radial distances from the longitudinal axis S1 of the drill body 10 (see figure 2), and wherein the outlet openings 52 of the coolant ducts 51/52 are located at mutually different radial distances from the longitudinal axis of the drill body. Mao teaches the use of a drill body 101 that comprises coolant ducts 35 with outlet openings (see figure 6) that are located at mutually different radial distances from the longitudinal axis X1 of the drill body for the purpose of extending toward a first insert pocket 7 and a second insert pocket 9 and applying coolant more directly to first and second inserts 3a/3b. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the coolant ducts of Okumura with the differently radially space outlet openings as taught by Mao in order to more equitably apply coolant to the cutting inserts.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (JP 2013-27962 A) in view of Nitzsche et al. (US 8,944,727).
Regarding claim 9, Okumura discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Okumura does not disclose wherein a central coolant supply duct is provided in the drill body in a rear part thereof, and wherein each coolant duct opens into the central coolant supply duct. Nitzsche et al. teaches the use of a drill body 14 that comprises coolant ducts 32/34 that are supplied by a central coolant supply duct 36 for the purpose of being able to match the coolant supply duct of a toolholder that clamps the drill body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the drill body of Okumura with the central coolant supply duct of Nitzsche et al. in order to be able to more easily accept coolant from a tool holder having a central coolant supply duct.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (JP 2013-27962 A).
Regarding claim 12, Okumura discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Okumura does not disclose wherein a material thickness of the drill body between an inner wall of each coolant duct and the peripheral surface of the drill body is at least 0.75 mm along the coolant duct. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the device of whatever relative sizes were desired for the purpose of providing a desired strength to the drill body, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Royer (US 2021/0001438 A1) discloses a drill body comprising coolant ducts having variable cross-sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 7 September 2026
Prosecution Insights