DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 12 November 2025, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 7-10 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 10,087,685 to Cooley et al. (hereinafter “Cooley”).
Regarding claim 1, Cooley discloses a method of manufacturing a plurality of material removal elements for a material removal system, comprising: splitting a subject round material removal element (200; see Fig. 2i numbered as 200i) in order to create a matched pair of strikeforce implements (see Fig. 2I) with a first implement (210i) of the matched pair having a first profile shape (212i; see Col. 11, lines 31-46) and a second implement (220i) of the matched pair having a second profile shape (also 212i); wherein for the first profile shape and the second profile shape, for a respective portion of each profile shape, a sinusoidal pattern is selected (Col. 11, lines 34-37), and wherein for the selection of the sinusoidal pattern: selecting a first number of crests “N” (see Fig. 2I) for a first profile shape (210i shown with 5 crests), which determines that the number of crests for a second profile shape is the first number plus one (220i shown with 6 crests); selecting an amplitude of the sinusoidal pattern (Fig. 2I shown with sine wave having a height); wherein the respective portion of the second profile shape follows the respective portion of the first profile shape in a rotary path when the matched pair are mounted as a set to remove material in the material removal system (see Fig. 5C; element 300 understood to be replaceable with element 200i; and cutting element 200 in Fig. 6A) and the matched pair creates a pattern of destructive interference upon being applied to a material being worked for a material removal application (in use during operation of rotary drill bit 680; see Fig. 6A); providing an alignment feature (330; retaining feature understood to be usable with the cutting bodies, with similar numbering for similar parts; see Col. 12, lines 44-51) on each of the first implement and the second implement (threaded opening 330 extends through each cutting member) on a location outside of the respective portions of each profile shape of the respective first and second implements (see Figs. 3 and 5C); wherein the alignment feature is configured to prevent rotation of each of the first implement and the second implement when each implement is attached to the material removal system relative to each other (see Col. 13, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 2, Cooley discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Cooley discloses that for the selection of the sinusoidal pattern, dimensions of the first and second implements (210i, 220i) are based on a predetermined parametric constant. The phrase “based on” is interpreted broadly, such that the examiner understands step functions interacting with the predetermined constant to be “based on” said constant. Phrased differently: in the absence of a recited mathematical function, any mathematical operation could be described as being “based on” a selected constant, reading on the illustrated sinusoidal configuration of Fig. 2i.
Regarding claim 3, Cooley discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Cooley discloses that for the selection of the sinusoidal pattern, dimensions of the first and second implements (210i, 220i) are based on a predetermined semi-parametric constant. The phrase “based on” is interpreted broadly, such that the examiner understands step functions interacting with the predetermined constant to be “based on” said constant. Phrased differently: in the absence of a recited mathematical function, any mathematical operation could be described as being “based on” a selected constant, reading on the illustrated sinusoidal configuration of Fig. 2i.
Regarding claim 6, Cooley discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Cooley discloses that the alignment feature comprises a saddle, triangle, or sawtooth configuration (threaded hole 330 understood to feature triangular profiles, not show; see Col. 13, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Cooley discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Cooley discloses that the sinusoidal pattern of the first portion (210i) is out of phase with the sinusoidal pattern of the second portion (220i; see Fig. 2i, pattern 212i appears to be out of phase by 180 degrees where waves mate).
Regarding claim 12, Cooley discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further Cooley discloses that the sinusoidal pattern of the first portion (210i) is out of phase with the sinusoidal pattern (212i) of the second portion by 180 degrees (see Fig. 2i, pattern 212i appears to be out of phase by 180 degrees where waves mate).
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 12 November 2025, with respect to Objections to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 11 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 11 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cooley.
Claims 1-6 were previously rejected as anticipated by Chapman.
Applicant notes the claim 1 has been amended to require a sinusoidal pattern rather than a truncated round pattern. Applicant assets that Chapman does not disclose a sinusoidal pattern.
The examiner agrees.
However, a new rejection is presented in view of Cooley with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 5,711,702 to Devlin teaches a cutter pair with a matched set of sinusoidal surfaces (see Figs. 5 and 6).
United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0283618 to DiGiovanni et al. teaches a cutter pair with a matched set of sinusoidal surfaces (see Fig. 6).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (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 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/07/2025