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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/27/2026 regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/27/2026 regarding claim 19 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 19, Applicant argues that Goolsbee (2525667) does not teach “a nozzle disposed within nozzle port” and “disposing at least one fluid inlet sleeve within the nozzle port of the body adjacent to the nozzle." Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in fig.1, element 7 has internal bore becomes narrower form top to bottom thus velocity of fluid flow will be increased when the fluid flows through the internal bore of element 6 (nozzle - a short tube with a taper or constriction used to speed up or direct a flow of fluid, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nozzle). And figs. 1-2 shows disposing at least one fluid inlet sleeve 9 within the nozzle port 6 (i.e., col. 2:26, 2:28 “port”, “aperture”) of the body adjacent to the nozzle 7. With respect to claim 20,
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 4, 5, 11, 15, 22, and 23 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.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 15, 22, and 23 recite the angle is “about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees” (claims 4, 11), “about 45 degrees”(claim 5), “about 30 degrees”(claim 20), “about 60 degrees” (claim 22), and ”about 60 degrees (claim 12)
Pgh. 29 of the instant application tries to define 'about' with 'as used herein' lexicography, but not in a definite or clear way. Examiner does know what, for example, "about 30 degrees" encompasses. Are 25 degrees and 35 degrees "about 30 degrees”?
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 21, 22 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Goolsbee (2520362).
Goolsbee teaches an earth-boring tool, comprising:
Re claim 1:
a tool body 5 comprising at least one nozzle port 6 extending from an external surface to an internal fluid plenum (i.e., fig. 1); and
at least one fluid inlet sleeve (i.e., see square in attached figure below) set against the at least one nozzle port of the tool body (i.e., fig. 2), the at least one fluid inlet sleeve comprising a hollow cylinder having an angled longitudinal end at least partially located within the internal fluid plenum of the tool body (i.e., figs. 1-2), the angled longitudinal end comprising at least one planar, longitudinal end surface of the fluid inlet sleeve, the at least one planar, longitudinal end surface defining a fluid entry plane of the fluid inlet sleeve, the at least one planar, longitudinal end surface oriented at an angle within a range from greater than 0 degrees to less than 90 degrees relative to a plane to which a longitudinal axis of the fluid inlet sleeve is normal (i.e., figs. 1-2). MPEP 2125, subsection I, states that "[d]rawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed" In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972), and for "When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art" In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Figs. 1-2 clearly shows the sleeve 9 with top end (tapered end) and bottom end (flat end). The figures clearly show that the top end is not flat. If Goolsbee’s intention that the top end is flat then figures should also show that it is flat like the bottom end. The examiner respectfully asserts that figs.1-2 of Goolsbee clearly and reasonably show a tapered top end and reasonably shows an angle between 0 and 90 degrees, as person having ordinary skill in the art, would readily appreciate. While Goolsbee does not disclose specific numerical value, it is a matter of basic geometry and a simple glance to see that the angle of the tapered top end is greater than 0 degrees (it is not parallel to the other end) and less than 90 degrees (it is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tube). This does not, for example, require measuring the angle shown by hand.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 9, a nozzle 8 (i.e., fig. 2, element 8 has internal bore becomes narrower from top to bottom thus velocity of fluid flow will be increased when the fluid flows through the internal bore of element 8 (nozzle - a short tube with a taper or constriction used to speed up or direct a flow of fluid, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nozzle). disposed adjacent to the at least one fluid inlet sleeve 9 within the nozzle port 6 (i.e., fig. 1).
Re claim 10, the tool body further comprises an alignment mark (i.e., surface of port 6) on an external surface of the tool body 5 and wherein the at least one fluid inlet sleeve 9 comprises an alignment recess (i.e., bore of the sleeve 9) formed in another longitudinal end of the at least one fluid inlet sleeve opposite the longitudinal end (i.e., fig. 2).
Re claim 21, the at least one nozzle port further comprises a seat 12 (i.e., fig. 2) against which the at least one fluid inlet sleeve is seated.
Re claim 24, an alignment recess (i.e., fig. 2, a lower portion of the internal bore of nozzle 8 aligns the sleeve) .
Re claim 25, a longitudinal end (i.e., flat bottom end) opposite the angled longitudinal end (i.e., angled top end); and an alignment recess in the longitudinal end (i.e., figs. 1-2 show the internal bore of nozzle 8 extends to the flat bottom end).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Goolsbee (2525667).
Goolsbee discloses a method, comprising:
Re claim 19:
disposing a nozzle 7 (i.e., fig. 1) within a nozzle port 6 of a body 5 of the earth- boring tool the nozzle port extending from an external surface of the body and an internal fluid plenum within the body; and
disposing at least one fluid inlet sleeve 9 within the nozzle port of the body adjacent to the nozzle such that an angled longitudinal end of the at least one fluid inlet sleeve is at least partially located within the internal fluid plenum (i.e., figs. 1-2), the angled longitudinal end comprising at least one planar, longitudinal end surface of the fluid inlet sleeve oriented at an angle within a range from greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to a plane to which a longitudinal axis of the fluid inlet sleeve is normal (i.e., figs. 1-2), wherein the planar, longitudinal end surface of the fluid inlet sleeve lies within a fluid entry plane of the fluid inlet sleeve (i.e., fig. 2).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, and 15, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goolsbee (2520362).
Re claims 4 and 5, While Goolsbee clearly shows a tapered top end with an angle between 0 and 90 degrees, Goolsbee does not explicitly disclose a numerical value of between about 30 to about 60. However, the angle shown in figs 1-2 is clearly in the general middle between 0 and 90 degrees and, in actual construction, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to mimic the drawings as shown, which suggest an angle that is meaningfully more than 0 degrees but also meaningfully less than 90 degrees, such as "about 30 to about 60". The examiner also notes that the claim uses "about 30 to about 60 degrees". This is clearly a broadening statement which, shows the range is neither critical nor narrow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the angle of Goolsbee with within the range of about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees for a predictable performance of the inlet sleeve, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior rat, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This also applies to claim 5 since it is directed to angle about 45 degrees.
Goolsbee discloses a fluid inlet sleeve, comprising:
Re claim 11:
a hollow cylinder 9 having an angled longitudinal end configured to be at least partially disposed within an internal fluid plenum of an earth-boring tool 5 (i.e., col. 1:6, "In boring well holes with rotary bits"), the angled longitudinal end comprising at least one surface, the at least one surface comprising a planar end surface of the fluid inlet sleeve 9 oriented at an angle within a range from 0 degrees to 90 degrees relative to a plane to which a longitudinal axis of the fluid inlet sleeve is normal (i.e., figs. 1-2), wherein the planar end surface of the fluid inlet sleeve lies within a fluid entry plane of the fluid inlet sleeve (i.e., fig. 2). While Goolsbee clearly shows a tapered top end with an angle between 0 and 90 degrees, Goolsbee does not explicitly disclose a numerical value of between about 30 to about 60. However, the angle shown in figs 1-2 is clearly in the general middle between 0 and 90 degrees and, in actual construction, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to mimic the drawings as shown, which suggest an angle that is meaningfully more than 0 degrees but also meaningfully less than 90 degrees, such as "about 30 to about 60". The examiner also notes that the claim uses "about 30 to about 60 degrees". This is clearly a broadening statement which, shows the range is neither critical nor narrow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the angle of Goolsbee with within the range of about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees for a predictable performance of the inlet sleeve, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior rat, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This also applies to claims 15, 22, 23 since they are directed to angle about 45 degrees, about 30 degrees, about 60 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
Reason for allowance:
The closest art, Goolsbee (2525667), fails to teach disposing at least one fluid inlet sleeve comprises aligning the at least one fluid inlet sleeve within the nozzle port by aligning an alignment recess formed in the at least one fluid inlet sleeve with an alignment mark formed in the external surface of the body of the earth-boring tool.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights