DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This office action is a Non-Final Rejection because it addresses 35 USC § 102/103 and 112(b) issues not addressed in the previous office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “section-wise planar joining end” recited in at least claims 16 and 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 16-19, 21, 22 and 26 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.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, the claim recites “section-wise planar joining end” which is indefinite. This limitation has been adequately defined in the disclosure and further is not illustrated in the drawings. The specification discusses “at least section-wise planar joining end” three different times but does not define what this structure requires and it’s relative position. Furthermore, the disclosure does not point to any reference character to show which element is the “at least section-wise planar joining end”. As such, it’s unclear what the “section-wise planar joining end” requires structurally and where it is located relative to the other elements. Furthermore, it is unclear what the “working end” is relative to the “section-wise planar joining end” and how these element differ from each other.
Claims 17-19, 21 and 22 are also rejected under this statue as the claims depend from claim 16.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites “said sintered cemented carbide has a Vickers hardness is a range from 1250 HV10 to 1700 HV10.” Which is grammatically incorrect and sounds awkward. The Examiner suggests the following or similar changes of “said sintered cemented carbide has a Vickers hardness ranging from 1250 HV10 to 1700 HV10.”
Claim 25 has the same issue as claim 23 detailed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 16-19, 21, 24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyanaga (U.S. Publication No. 20060180355 ).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Miyanaga teaches a masonry drill head (3; Fig. 1-3, pp[0022]), comprising:
an at least section-wise planar joining end (6) for heat induced joining to a shaft (A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block is fixedly attached to a tip end of the bit body 1 by brazing; pp[0022]);
a working end (4) for shattering masonry material under a percussive motion (each cutting edge 4 strikes the crush face of the drill hole to cause the crush face of the drill hole to be subjected to a striking and cutting action; pp[0027]);
at least two conveying webs (3a, 3b, 3c; Fig. 1, 2,3) each emerging from said at least section-wise planar joining end (Fig. 1);
at least two conveying grooves each extending between two of said conveying webs, wherein a cross-sectional solid material area of the masonry drill head increases towards said at least section-wise planar joining end, such that a masonry material debris intake of at least one of said conveying grooves increases towards said working end (Concave portions 5 are each formed between the cutting blades 3a and 3b, 3b and 3c, and 3c and 3a and lead to the chip discharge grooves 2 of the bit body 1; pp[0022], Figs 1-3);
said at least two conveying webs (3a, 3b, 3c; Fig. 1, 2,3) touch an outer working circle (the “outer working circle” is the outer most perimeter of masonry head along cutting blades 3a, 3b, or 3c; Fig. 2,3) at said at least section-wise planar joining end (6), wherein said cross-sectional solid material area at said at least section-wise planar Joining end lies in a range from 40% to 90% (viewing figs.2 and 3, cross-sectional solid material area at joining end 6 is 40%-90%) of an area (7) of the outer working circle (the outer most perimeter of masonry head along cutting blades 3a, 3b, or 3c; Fig. 2,3) ; and
the masonry drill head being made from a sintered cemented carbide ( A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block; pp[0022], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 16, wherein said cross- sectional solid material area of the masonry drill head increases towards said at least section-wise planar joining end by a thickening of at least one of said conveying webs towards said at least section-wise planar joining end (the conveying webs 3a, 3b and 3c thickens towards the planar joining end as show; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 16, wherein said cross- sectional solid material area of the masonry drill head increases towards said at least section-wise planar joining end by a thickening of at least two of said conveying webs towards said at least section-wise planar joining end (the conveying webs thicken towards the planar joining end as show; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 16, wherein said at least two conveying webs are two of three or four conveying webs (web 3a, 3b, 3c) emerging from said at least section-wise planar joining end (webs 3a, 3b, 3c emerge from at least the section-wise planar joining end as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21 Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 16, wherein at least one of said conveying webs (3a, 3b, 3c) is twisted resulting in a twisted conveying web (webs 3a, 3b, and 3c are twisted as shown; Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 24, Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 16, wherein said working end (4) has a percussion knob protruding axially outwards (9; Fig. 1, pp[0027])
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Miyanaga teaches a masonry drill head (3; Fig. 1, pp[0022]), comprising:
an at least section-wise planar joining end (6) for heat induced joining to a shaft (A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block is fixedly attached to a tip end of the bit body 1 by brazing; pp[0022]);
a working end (4) for shattering masonry material under a percussive motion (each cutting edge 4 strikes the crush face of the drill hole to cause the crush face of the drill hole to be subjected to a striking and cutting action; pp[0027]);
at least two conveying webs (3a, 3b, 3c; Fig. 1, 2,3)each emerging from said at least section-wise planar joining end (Fig. 1);
at least two conveying grooves each extending between two of said conveying webs (Concave portions 5 are each formed between the cutting blades 3a and 3b, 3b and 3c, and 3c and 3a and lead to the chip discharge grooves 2 of the bit body 1; pp[0022], Figs 1-3), wherein at least one of said conveying webs is twisted more on parts of said at least section-wise planar joining end than on parts of said working end resulting in a twisted conveying web (webs 3a, 3b, and 3c are twisted as shown; Figs. 2, 3);
wherein said twisted conveying web has a twist angle which lies in a range from 15° to 45° on parts of said at least section-wise planar Joining end (the twist along parts of 6 is 15° to 45°; Fig. 2) and in a range from 0° to 15° on parts of said working end (0° at 4; Fig. 2); and
the masonry drill head being made from a sintered cemented carbide ( A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block; pp[0022], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 26, wherein said at least two conveying webs are two of three or four conveying webs emerging from said at least section-wise planar joining end (webs 3a, 3b, 3c emerge from at least the section-wise planar joining end as shown in Fig. 1).
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 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyanaga (U.S. Publication No. 20060180355 ) in view of Beer et al.(U.S. Publication No. 20220184723).
Regarding claim 22, Miyanaga teaches the masonry drill head according to claim 21 and twisted conveying webs (3a, 3b and 3c; Figs. 2,3).
Miyanaga is silent regarding wherein said twisted conveying web has a twist angle in a range from 15° to 45°.
Beer, drawn to a drilling device, discloses that said twisted conveying web has a twist angle in a range from 15° to 45° ( chip removal grooves and the webs between them preferably run twisted around the tool axis, in particular at a constant or variable twist angle, typically in an interval of 0° to 50°, in particular 20° to 35°, for example 30°; pp[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the twist of the conveying webs such that the twist has a range from 15° to 45°, as taught by Beer, since 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)
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyanaga (U.S. Publication No. 20060180355 ) in view of Rostvall (U.S. Publication No. 20240052708).
Regarding claim 23, Miyanaga teaches a masonry drill head (3; Fig. 1-3, pp[0022]), comprising:
an at least section-wise planar joining end (the end of 3 attached to 1; fig. 1) for heat induced joining to a shaft (A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block is fixedly attached to a tip end of the bit body 1 by brazing; pp[0022]);
a working end (4) for shattering masonry material under a percussive motion (each cutting edge 4 strikes the crush face of the drill hole to cause the crush face of the drill hole to be subjected to a striking and cutting action; pp[0027]);
at least two conveying webs (3a, 3b, 3c; Fig. 1, 2,3) each emerging from said at least section-wise planar joining end (Fig. 1);
at least two conveying grooves each extending between two of said conveying webs, wherein across-sectional solid material area of the masonry drill head increases towards said at least section-wise planar joining end, such that a masonry material debris intake of at least one of said conveying grooves increases towards said working end (Concave portions 5 are each formed between the cutting blades 3a and 3b, 3b and 3c, and 3c and 3a and lead to the chip discharge grooves 2 of the bit body 1; pp[0022], Figs 1-3); and
the masonry drill head being made from a sintered cemented carbide ( A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block; pp[0022], Fig. 1).
Miyanaga is silent regarding wherein said sintered cemented carbide has a Vickers hardness is a ranging from 1250 HV10 to 1700 HV10.
Rostvall, drawn to a rock drill, discloses sintered cemented carbide has a Vickers hardness is a ranging from 1250 HV10 to 1700 HV10 (The hardness of a cemented carbide comprising about 5.5-7 wt.-% binder phase, e.g., cobalt binder phase, may for example be in the order of at least about 1400 HV (Vickers Hardness); pp[0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sintered cemented carbide of Miyanaga such that it has a hardness of at least about 1400 HV (Vickers Hardness), as taught by Rostvall, since 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).
Regarding claim 25, Miyanaga teaches a masonry drill head (3; Fig. 1-3, pp[0022]), comprising:
an at least section-wise planar joining end (the end of 3 attached to 1; fig. 1) for heat induced joining to a shaft (A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block is fixedly attached to a tip end of the bit body 1 by brazing; pp[0022]);
a working end (4) for shattering masonry material under a percussive motion (each cutting edge 4 strikes the crush face of the drill hole to cause the crush face of the drill hole to be subjected to a striking and cutting action; pp[0027]);
at least two conveying webs (3a, 3b, 3c; Fig. 1, 2,3) each emerging from said at least section-wise planar joining end (Fig. 1);
at least two conveying grooves each extending between two of said conveying webs, wherein across-sectional solid material area of the masonry drill head increases towards said at least section-wise planar joining end, such that a masonry material debris intake of at least one of said conveying grooves increases towards said working end (Concave portions 5 are each formed between the cutting blades 3a and 3b, 3b and 3c, and 3c and 3a and lead to the chip discharge grooves 2 of the bit body 1; pp[0022], Figs 1-3); and
the masonry drill head being made from a sintered cemented carbide ( A cutting blade chip 3 formed by a cemented carbide block; pp[0022], Fig. 1).
Miyanaga is silent regarding said sintered cemented carbide has a Vickers hardness is a ranging from 1300 HV10 to 1500 HV10.
Rostvall, drawn to a rock drill, discloses sintered cemented carbide has a Vickers hardness is a ranging from 1300 HV10 to 1500 HV10 (The hardness of a cemented carbide comprising about 5.5-7 wt.-% binder phase, e.g., cobalt binder phase, may for example be in the order of at least about 1400 HV (Vickers Hardness); pp[0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sintered cemented carbide of Miyanaga such that it has a hardness of at least about 1400 HV (Vickers Hardness), as taught by Rostvall, since 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights