DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The examiner notes a patent application reference at least at page 1, third full paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate both an axis of rotation (see page 7, second full paragraph) and clearance surface (see page 7, fourth full paragraph).
Reference character 16 has been used to designate both a near-center section (see page 8, first full paragraph) and an outer section (see page 8, third full paragraph).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 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 1 recites “a plurality of main cutting surfaces” at lines 1-2 and “wherein a respective clearance surface adjoins the main cutting surfaces in a circumferential direction” at lines 3-4. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret phrase “a respective clearance surface” in this case. Is there one respective clearance surface adjoining each individual main cutting surface? Is there a single clearance surface abutting multiple main cutting surface of the plurality of cutting surfaces?
Claim 1 recites the pronoun “its” at line 6. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim element the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claim elements in full each time they are to be referenced.
Claims 2-14 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “greater than 01. times”, and the claim also recites “greater than 0.2 times, and preferably up to 0.5 times the radius” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 recites “0.1 times, or greater than 0.2 times, and preferably up to 0.5 times the radius” at lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the range has an upper bound, or whether a value of 0.6 reads on greater than 0.2 times the radius and thus reads on the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the near-center section having the linear progression is designed to be in a range greater than 0.1 times, or greater then 0.2 times, or preferably up to 0.5 times the radius” at lines 1-3. It is unclear how the phrase “at least” modifies “in a range.” The examiner presumes a value within the range actually reads on the limitation, however it is unclear what “at least” in a range means or would mean to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 recites “the main cutting surface” in line 2. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a plurality of main cutting surfaces” such that it is unclear to which “the main cutting surface” the claim references. Claims 6, 9, 12, and 13 each include similar recitations of the main cutting surface, and are rejected for the same reasons.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “great than 0.7 times”, and the claim also recites “in particular greater than 0.9 times the radius” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “less than 0.2 times”, and the claim also recites “in particular less than 0.1 times the radius” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claims 1-6 and 10-14
Claims 1-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0043441 to Fujiwara et al. (hereinafter “Fujiwara”).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a drill (see Fig. 1), which extends along an axis of rotation (O) and has a radius (see Fig. 1; diameter D identified) as well as a plurality of main cutting surfaces (4a, 4b), which each extend in the direction of the axis of rotation (O) from a cutting corner (radially outermost corner of cutting edges 4a, 4b; see Fig. 2) situated on the radius, wherein a respective clearance surface (6a, 6b) adjoins the main cutting surfaces (4a, 4b) in a circumferential direction (W), forms a clearance angle with respect to a horizontal plane (horizontal plane into the page with respect to Fig. 3) oriented perpendicular to the axis of rotation (O; see Fig. 5, surfaces extend transverse to horizontal plane and to central axis O), and transitions along its further progression into a flute (15a, 15b or 17a, 17b), characterized in that – when viewed in a vertical section parallel to the axis of rotation – an outer section of the clearance surface (6a, 6b) in the region of the cutting corner (radially outermost portion of body) has a curved progression (see Fig. 1; curved portion of surface at least towards portion 8a, 8b), and a near-center section in the region of the axis of rotation has a linear progression (see Fig. 1, at least linear portions at 20a, 20b).
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the near-center section having the linear progression is designed to be at least in a range greater than 0.1 time (see Fig. 1; it appears that the linear progression section at 20a, 20b is greater than .01 times the dimension of the radius), or greater than 0.2 times, and preferably up to 0.5 times the radius.
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the outer section having the curved progression (curved portion of surface towards portions 8a, 8b) is designed to be at least in a range greater than 0.9 times the radius (see Fig. 1; curved portion shown extending to the radius).
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the value of the clearance angle on the main cutting surface (4a, 4b) in the outer section is greater than the value of the clearance angle in the near-center section (see Fig. 3; angles near center axis shown smaller than radially outward).
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the clearance angle in the near-center section has a value in the range of 8˚ to 10˚ (see paragraph [0015]; angle alpha is 10 to 30 degrees, overlapping with the range claimed; see MPEP 2131.03(II)).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the clearance angle in the outer section (at 6a, 6b) increases from a first value (see Fig. 1; angle relative to vertical horizontal direction appears to increase towards cut-in at 17a, 17b) to a second value, starting from the main cutting surface (4a, 4b) in a circumferential direction (W).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the outer section having the curved progression (curved portion of surface towards portions 8a, 8b) extends into the flute (15a, 15b; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the near-center section (see Fig. 1; portions adjacent 20a, 20b) having the linear progression extends into the flute (17a, 17b).
Regarding claim 12, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Fujiwara discloses that the clearance surface (6a, 6b) is divided in a circumferential direction (W) by a separation line (imaginary line defining core diameter Dw can be rotated to line between lead line for 8a and 8b in Fig. 3) into a first portion facing the main cutting surface (4a, 4b) and into a second portion facing the flute (15a, 15b, 17a, 17b), wherein the separation line extends from inward to outward (radially from axis of rotation; see Fig. 1), and the main cutting surface (4a, 4b) intersects at least in an outer intersection, wherein when viewed in a vertical section (see Fig. 3), the first portion extends in a linear manner and the second portion extends in a curved manner (see Fig. 3). The limitations following “preferably” are understood to be optional.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 12, and further Fujiwara discloses that the separation line (separation line intersects and passed through cutting surfaces adjacent 6a and 6b) further intersects the main cutting surface (4a, 4b) at an internal intersection (see Fig. 3). The limitations following “preferably” are understood to be optional.
Regarding claim 14, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 13, and further Fujiwara discloses that the separation line (Dw) is oriented in a linear manner (see Annotated Figure) and in particular parallel to a radial (as drawn, separation line passes through body shifted from a radius and origin O of the top down view), which extends through the axis of rotation and through the cutting corner (passes into cutting corners near radial extends of cutting surfaces).
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, 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.
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.
Claims 7-9
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 6. Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose that that the first value is in the range of 10˚ to 20˚.
However, the MPEP teaches 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 no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited range of angles for the clearance angles would cause the device taught by Fujiwara to behave differently in use than any other angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the clearance surface as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Fujiwara.
Thus, Fujiwara teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 6. Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose that that the second value is in the range of 20˚ to 40˚.
However, the MPEP teaches 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 no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited range of angles for the clearance angles would cause the device taught by Fujiwara to behave differently in use than any other angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the clearance surface as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Fujiwara.
Thus, Fujiwara teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwara discloses the limitations of claim 6. Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose that that the first value in a circumferential direction is measured from a first angular distance of 5˚ from the main cutting surface, and the second value in a circumferential direction is measured at a second angular distance of 15˚ from the main cutting surface.
However, the MPEP teaches 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 no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited initial location for the first value and the second value would cause the device taught by Fujiwara to behave differently in use than any other angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify location of the clearance surfaces to lie at the angular distances claimed as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Fujiwara.
Thus, Fujiwara teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0229190 to Yamamoto et al. teaches a drill (1) having a body clearance which extends in a radial direction (see Fig. 3).
United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0326653 to Guter teaches a drill (2) having a plurality of clearance surfaces (2) which taper from a tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights