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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group 1 claims 1 - 9. Claims 10 - 25 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/10/2026. The restriction is made FINAL.
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 2007/0056413 Krenzer et al. (‘Krenzer-‘413 hereafter), App 11/464279.
U.S. 5,800,100 Ulrich Krenzer (‘Krenzer hereafter), Filed 06/09/1997.
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 25 are currently being examined.
Claims 10 - 25 have been withdrawn.
No Claims have been canceled.
Claims 2, 4, 6 – 9 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,800,100 Ulrich Krenzer (‘Krenzer hereafter), and further in view of .
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Krenzer discloses all the claim limitations including: A hole finishing tool (‘Krenzer, #21 (drilling tool/ finishing tool) comprising:
a shank (‘Krenzer, Fig 13 (below));
a body (‘Krenzer, Fig 13 (below)) extending axially from the shank (‘Krenzer, Fig 13 (below)),
the body comprising ribs (‘Krenzer, Fig 13 (below)),
each of the ribs comprising a respective pocket (‘Krenzer, Fig 8 (below)); and
a plurality of cutting inserts (‘Krenzer, #1 & #1’ (insert/ cutting insert)),
each cutting insert attached to the respective pocket of the respective rib (‘Krenzer, Fig 8 (below));
wherein each cutting insert (‘Krenzer, #1 & #1’ (insert/ cutting insert)) comprises:
a cutting edge (‘Krenzer, #10 & 10a (cutting edge)); and
a chip breaker pocket disposed in a rake face (‘Krenzer, Col. 1, ln 64 – Col. 2, ln 32, “The invention teaches that this object can be accomplished by a shape of the inserts which is extended in a longitudinal direction of the inserts, with a channel like trough which runs essentially in the longitudinal direction of the cutting surface sides of the inserts and with blades located on the ends of the channel; whereby the channel contains a base surface which has the approximate outline of a parallelogram and, with regard to the longer sides of the parallelogram, forms an acute angle with the longitudinal axis of the inserts; the shorter sides of the parallelogram form the one cutting edge of a blade; and two lateral surfaces each in the shape of an obtuse triangle, each of which flanks the two longer parallelogram sides of the base surface, each rise out of the base surface at an obtuse angle; the base side of each of which coincides with one of the longer parallelogram sides and the short leg of which, as additional cutting edges together with an adjacent shorter parallelogram side of the base surface forming the cutting edges form an insert blade. As a result of the configuration of the inserts of a drilling tool as claimed by the invention, one essential advantage achieved is an equalization of the cutting force. This equalization is achieved by the channel-shaped troughing and in particular by the cutting edges of the insert blade, which are at an obtuse point angle to one another. As a result of the angled arrangement of the blade edges, viewed in the cutting direction or in the plane of the blade, the radially outward drift of the drilling tool is reduced. The channel-shaped configuration of the inserts means that a chip which is removed from the workpiece has already been deformed to a significant extent into its desired shape, namely a chip spiral. Following this deformation, the chip impacts the wall of the chip space which is adjacent to the insert in the chip discharge direction at an obtuse angle, i.e. with reduced friction. The chip removal is thereby improved by the configuration of a drilling tool as claimed by the invention.” #9 (base surface/ rake face), pocket created by surfaces of #12 (later face) and #9 (base surface) at #18 (obtuse point angle), see Fig 1 (below)),
the chip breaker pocket (‘Krenzer, Fig 1, pocket created by surfaces of #12 (later face) and #9 (base surface) at #18 (obtuse point angle), see Fig 1 (below)) comprising:
a front boundary parallel to the cutting edge (‘Krenzer, surface under #14 (cutting edege), see Fig 1 (below)); and
a chip wall disposed at a rotation angle relative to the cutting edge (‘Krenzer, chip wall as shown in Fig 2 (below), is at a rotation angle relative to cutting edge #14),
Except ‘Krenzer is silent regarding: the rotation angle ranging between 0° to 50°.
However, ‘Krenzer Fig. 2 (below) shows angle -A- and although ‘Krenzer is silent regarding the degree of Angle -A-, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Krenzer with an angle between 0° to 50° since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed angle was significant.
Regarding Claim[s] 3, ‘Krenzer discloses all the claim limitations including: chip wall (‘Krenzer, Figs 2 & 5 (below)) is disposed at a chip wall angle relative to the rake face (36, 136, 236, 336) (‘Krenzer, Fig 5 (below)),
Except ‘Krenzer is silent regarding: the chip wall angle ranging between 60° to 80°.
However, ‘Krenzer Fig. 5 (below) shows angle -B- and although ‘Krenzer is silent regarding the degree of Angle -B-, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Krenzer with an angle between 60° to 80°since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed angle was significant.
Regarding Claim[s] 5, ‘Krenzer discloses all the claim limitations including: land width (‘Krenzer, Fig 2 (below)) between the cutting edge and the chip breaker pocket.
Except ‘Krenzer is silent regarding: between the cutting edge and the chip breaker pocket ranging between 0.05 mm to 0.12 mm.
However, ‘Krenzer Fig. 2 (below) shows length -C- and although ‘Krenzer is silent regarding the lengtjh of -C-, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Krenzer with a length between 0.05 mm to 0.12 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed angle was significant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 2 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the chip breaker pocket further comprises a bottom surface, the bottom surface disposed at a rake angle relative to the rake face, the rake angle ranging between 15° to 20°.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413).
‘‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413 does not teach the chip breaker pocket further comprises a bottom surface, the bottom surface disposed at a rake angle relative to the rake face. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claim XX. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 4 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "chip breaker pocket comprises a groove width.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413).
‘‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413 does not teach a groove width. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 6 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "chip breaker pocket further comprises a bottom surface, a transition radius between the chip wall and the bottom surface ranging between 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413).
‘‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413 does not teach chip breaker pocket and a bottom surface has a radius between the chip wall and the bottom surface. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 7 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "chip breaker pocket further comprises a side edge and the cutting insert further comprises an outer diameter edge, the side edge disposed at a retraction angle relative to the outer diameter edge, the retraction angle ranging between 5° to 15°.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413).
‘‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413 does not teach chip breaker pocket further comprises a side edge and the cutting insert further comprises an outer diameter edge, the side edge disposed at a retraction angle relative to the outer diameter edge, the retraction angle ranging between 5° to 15°. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 8 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "chip breaker pocket further comprises a side edge and the cutting insert further comprises a front edge, the side edge disposed at a retraction angle relative to the front edge,
the retraction angle ranging between 0° to 45°.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413).
‘‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413 does not teach chip breaker pocket further comprises a side edge and the cutting insert further comprises a front edge, the side edge disposed at a retraction angle relative to the front edge, the retraction angle ranging between 0° to 45°. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 7 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein " the chip breaker pocket further comprises rounded corners between surfaces of the chip breaker pocket.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413).
‘‘Krenzer and ‘Krenzer-‘413 does not teach chip breaker pocket further comprises a side edge and the cutting insert further comprises an outer diameter edge, the side edge disposed at a retraction angle relative to the outer diameter edge, the retraction angle ranging between 5° to 15°. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
[AltContent: textbox (ribs)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Shank)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
730
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. 5,800,100 Figure 13
[AltContent: textbox (rib)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pocket seating
insert #1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pocket seating insert #1’)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
502
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
U.S. 5,800,100 Figure 8
[AltContent: textbox (Front boundary)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (System of chip breaker pocket
#18)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (System of chip breaker pocket
#9)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (System of chip breaker pocket
#12)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
764
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
U.S. 5,800,100 Figure 1
[AltContent: textbox (Land)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (-C-)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Chip Wall)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle -A-)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
643
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
U.S. 5,800,100 Figure 2
[AltContent: textbox (Angle -B-)][AltContent: textbox (Chip Wall)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Rake Face)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
470
737
media_image5.png
Greyscale
U.S. 5,800,100 Figure 5
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. 2009/0044986 Jaeger et al. (‘Jaeger hereafter), App 12/211479
Teaches a drill assembly tool, with inserts.
U.S. 4,072,438 Thomas R. Powers (‘Powers hereafter), Filed 07/26/1976;
Teaches insert type drill, with #73 chip breaker.
U.S. 2019/0375024 Kento Iwasaki (‘Iwasaki hereafter), App 16/481875;
Teaches insert drill, cutting insert.
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
08/18/2026
Prosecution Insights