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, Species B, claims 16-28 in the reply filed on 8 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The election of species requirement does not identify a unique special technical feature for each species or explain why the common claimed peripheral-groove features fail to establish a single general inventive concept. The application of Lang against the common subject matter of claim 16 alone does not complete the required a posteriori unity analysis.”. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature of claim 16 is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lang. As such, no additional a posteriori analysis is required to show lack of unity. See PCT Rule 13.2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8 September 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 2, “and overall height” should be changed to “an overall height”.
In claim 18, line 3, one of the pair of commas should be removed.
In claim 19, line 2, the comma after the word “edge” should be removed.
In claim 20, line 2, a comma should be added after the word “face”.
In claim 20, line 5, a comma should be added after the word “face”.
Claim 20 is objected to because it ends in a comma.
Claim 21 is objected to because it ends in a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19, 21, 23, and 28 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "an acute tip angle between 115 and 145 degrees" in line 2. However, an acute angle is an angle less than 90 degrees, making it unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim limitation. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that the tip angle is obtuse.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the legs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "said acute angle between 80 and 94 degrees" in line 3. However, an acute angle is an angle less than 90 degrees, making it unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim limitation. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that the tip angle is either acute or obtuse.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein said first and/or second short side has a convex shape with a convexity that corresponds to the radial distance of the first- and/or second short side to said axis of rotation”. It is unclear how the convexity of the convex shape corresponds to the radial distance of the first- and/or second short side to said axis of rotation, as neither the claim nor the specification defines how these two elements correspond.
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 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lang (DE 102 08 820 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lang discloses a drill-bit tip plate 5 (embodiment of figures 2a-2c) for mounting on the shank of a twist drill bit 2, said drill-bit tip plate having an axis of rotation (a), an overall width between first- and second short sides (see figure 2a), an overall height between front- and rear ends (see figure 2b), and an overall thickness between first- and second broad sides 27/28, said drill-bit tip plate comprises: a first outer relief face 15 and a first outer rake face 11 connected to a first outer cutting edge 9, said first outer cutting edge extends to a first apex 35, a second outer relief face 16 and a second outer rake face 12 connected to second outer cutting edge 10, said second outer cutting edge extends to a second apex 36, a first inner relief face 8 (adjacent cutting edge 9, see figures 2a-2b) and said first outer rake face connected to a first inner cutting edge 21, said first inner cutting edge extends to said first apex, and a second inner relief face 8 (adjacent cutting edge 10, see figures 2a-2b) and said second outer rake face connected to a second inner cutting edge 25, said second inner cutting edge extends to said second apex, said first and second inner cutting edges each having an equal acute angle with said axis of rotation (the tip plate is symmetrical; also see figure 2b), said first outer relief face and said first inner relief face each connecting to said first broad side and to one another along a first edge 20 that extends to said first apex (see figures 2a-2b), said second outer relief face and said second inner relief face each connecting to said second broad side and to one another along a second edge 24 that extends to said second apex (see figures 2a-2b), said first apex and said second apex being equally distanced from said axis of rotation by a first distance (d), wherein said first apex is distanced from said second broad side by a second distance and said second apex is distanced from said first broad side by said second distance (not labeled but the same since the tip plate is symmetrical; also see figure 2a).
Regarding claim 22, Lang discloses wherein said first and/or second short side has a convex shape (see figure 2a).
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 17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang.
Regarding claims 17, 19, and 23, Lang discloses wherein said first outer cutting edge 9 and said second outer cutting edge 10 form an obtuse tip angle, and wherein said first edge 20 forms an angle with said first cutting edge 9 and said second edge 24 forms an angle with said second cutting edge 10.
Lang does not disclose wherein said acute angle is between 0 and 14 degrees, or wherein said first outer cutting edge 9 and said second outer cutting edge 10 form an obtuse tip angle between 115 and 145 degrees, or wherein said first edge forms an angle with said first cutting edge and said second edge forms an angle with said second cutting edge wherein said angle being between 80 and 94 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the claimed angles to be within the claimed ranges for the purpose of providing an optimized cutting of a workpiece, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Additionally, these angles are result-effective variables that affect the quality of the cut to a drilled workpiece, and it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 20, 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 and 26-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bauer (US 9,132,571) discloses a drill-bit tip plate with a center gap.
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 13 October 2026
Prosecution Insights