DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/9/2026 has been entered. 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 Amendment
Applicant's amendments to require "cutting elements comprising polycrystalline compacts including sintered diamond material" is sufficient to overcome the prior grounds of rejection. New grounds necessitated by amendment follow. That said, the examiner is maintaining the use of US 5,651,421 (Newton) as the primary grounds of rejection and therefore the examiner responds to the specifics of Applicant's remarks regarding the prior art.
(1) The amendments add the language "cutting elements comprising polycrystalline compacts including sintered diamond material" (underlined for amendment; examiner bolded emphasis on "sintered"). The prior rejection drew the claimed "cutting elements" to "primary cutters 14" and "secondary cutters 15". Newton teaches in col 3:59-62: "Each cutter 14, 15 is generally cylindrical and of circular cross section and comprises a front facing table of polycrystalline diamond bonded to a cylindrical substrate of cemented tungsten carbide". Applicant is correct in saying that Newton does not explicitly disclose "sintered diamond particles" (emphasis on "sintered" again). Newton does not use the word "sintered", but clearly and reasonably discloses polycrystalline diamond compacts, also known in the art as "PDCs", as PHOSITA would readily appreciate. This is supported by the SLB Glossary Entry for "PDC" (included with this action) and the present disclosure at as-filed ¶ [0036]: "polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) cutting elements each including a volume of superabrasive material, such as polycrystalline diamond material, supported on a ceramic-metal composite material substrate". Because Newton does not use the word "sintered", Newton can not be said to read on this new limitation.
However, the examiner is respectfully obliged to note that the present case does not use the word "sintered" either. This then raises the question of impermissible new matter under 112(a). Either "sintered diamond particles" are inherent to the generalized PDCs of the present case and Newton still reads on the amendments for the same reason, or Applicant has added new matter to the claims.
In other words, the only possible present support for "sintered diamond particles" is inherency to generalized PDCs, which are taught by both the present case and Newton. If "sintered diamond particles" are not inherent to PDCs, the amendments overcome Newton, but are also new matter under 112(a). If, as Applicant remarks at the top of page 12 as-filed, "polycrystalline or natural diamond embedded therein [taught by Newton] does not suggest diamond inserts comprising polycrystalline compacts including sintered diamond material", the same must be true for the present case, which only teaches generalized PDCs and similarly does not use the word "sintered".
(2) Applicant asserts "[s]upport for the amendments to claims 12 and 18 is found in as-filed specification at least at ¶ [0059]-[0060]" (top of page 10, as-filed). These paragraphs read, in their entirety:
[0059] Certain raw materials and certain processes to form a drill bit may result in significantly more CO2 than other raw materials or processes. The diamond raw material (FIG.3A) and pressing the diamond into their components (FIG. 3B) each have a significant impact on the magnitude of emitted CO2 associated with forming a drill bit. This may be in part due to the high pressure high temperature (HPHT) conditions required to form particulate diamond material consumes a large amount of energy. This may also be due to the high demand for energy to press the particulate diamond material into polycrystalline tables of cutting elements and diamond inserts to be placed in the bit body.
[0060] In some embodiments, redesigning the drill bit (e.g., the drill bit 100 of FIG. 1) to reduce the amount of CO2 associated with forming the drill bit may involve reducing the quantity of diamond material in the drill bit. For example, diamond material may be removed from the drill bit until the combined mass of all of the diamond material is less than about 0.5% of the total mass of the drill bit. The diamond material used for diamond inserts may account for up to about 0.20% of the total mass of the drill bit, such as about 0.15% of the total mass of the drill bit, about 0.10% of the total mass of the drill bit, about 0.05% of the total mass of the drill bit, or even 0.00% of the total mass of the drill bit (in embodiments in which the diamond inserts are eliminated from the drill bit). The diamond material used for the cutting elements may account for up to about 0.30%, such as about 0.25% of the total mass of the drill bit, about 0.25% of the total mass of the drill bit, about 0.15% of the total mass of the drill bit, or about 0.10% of the total mass of the drill bit."
The examiner finds no explicit support for "sintering", and no implicit or inherent teaching thereof in ¶s [0059] and [0060]. ¶ [0059] discusses a prior art process that is disparaged and apparently not used in the present case. Nor does ¶ 59 use the word "sintered". While sintering may use high pressure and/or high temperature, these are not inherently interchangeable and "high pressure high temperature" is not synonymous with "sintering", as supported by the included NLP for "sintering". This is further articulated by the prior art of US 2013/0043078 (Qian), utilized in the prior art rejections below: "The assembly 350 may be subjected to an HPHT process using any of the HPHT conditions and pressure transmitting mediums disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the HPHT conditions may include a pressure that is lower than the pressure employed in sintering the PCD table..." (¶ 67 of Qian); i.e. "HPHT" conditions that are not sintering conditions.
Present ¶ [0060] discusses reducing the CO2 emissions of [0059] by "reducing the quality of diamond material in the drill bit", also does not use the word "sintered", and simply contains no manufacturing specifics at all. The examiner therefore holds the "sintered" limitations to be impermissible new matter under 112(a).
(3) Applicant argues "adding secondary blades 27 that provide a redundancy in features including secondary cutters 29… and cylindrical bearing inserts 38… as well as additional preform cutters 39 mounted on the leading side of a lower end of the gauge pads 35 significantly add amount[s] of diamond utilizes in the bit of Newton. One skilled in the art would not seek to reduce the amount of diamond used in a drill bit in view of Newton since Newton discloses a significant addition of diamond (i.e., more than double) in a drill bit. Indeed, Newton discloses the opposite" (second ¶ of as-filed page 12 of the Remarks; underlined emphasis added).
The examiner acknowledges that "adding secondary blades 27" will add more diamond elements to the bit, yes. But Applicant provides no consideration of the newly added mass of the new blade 27 itself as well, which is not diamond. In other words the added non-diamond mass of any "added secondary blades 27" far outpaces the added mass of diamond thereon, and would logically decrease the total mass of diamond relative to the remaining mass of the bit. In fact, the examiner respectfully asserts that Newton's additional blades further supports the logical underpinning of the 103 rejection regarding the obviousness of the claimed numerical range: The more blades, the higher the ratio of "total mass" to "diamond mass" (i.e. a lower relative % of diamond as claimed). Is Applicant asserting that the diamond mass of the cutters on a blade 27 is inherently more than the non-diamond mass of the entire blade 27 itself? This is the only way adding more blades could increase the relative mass of diamond to the mass of the bit body as they currently argue.
Applicant's assertion that Newton discloses "more than double" the diamond in a drill bit (compared to what???) is uncited conjecture that simply has no basis in Newton. Applicant's remarks do not attempt to address the rest of the examiner's logical underpinning of the 103 rejection as-presented in the prior action. Instead Applicant relies upon the conclusionary statement that "Newton discloses the opposite", which is predicated on this uncited "more than double" premise and Applicant's ignoring of the additional non-diamond mass that is added for every "additional secondary blade 27" itself. Instead, Applicant focuses solely on the diamond elements on the new blades and ignores the non-diamond mass implications of the new blade themselves.
If, as Applicant asserts, "Newton discloses the opposite" of the examiner's premise, and if the Examiner's argument that "diamonds are well known to be a cost intensive material, thus motivating the artisan to use as little as reasonably possible" is false, why does Newton disclose only putting diamond elements on selected, specific portions? Junk slots 32 & 34 will be continuously subjected to extremely abrasive drilling fluid and cuttings; no diamond thereon. The space between bearing inserts 37 & 38 is exposed and unprotected with no diamond material. The space between cutters 28 and backup studs 40; exposed with no diamond material thereon. If Newton discloses "the opposite" of a minimally necessary amount diamond, why does Newton not surface the entire bit with diamond? That would be much closer to "disclosing the opposite" as Applicant currently argues. But again, this is conjecture and does not have basis in Newton. The examiner's logical underpinning for the 103 rejection of the obviousness of the numerical range as previously presented is respectfully maintained for the above reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a "new matter" rejection per MPEP 608.04 and 2163.06.
Independent claim 12 has been amended to recite "cutting elements comprising polycrystalline compacts including sintered diamond material". Independent claim 18 has been amended to recite "diamond inserts comprising polycrystalline compacts including sintered diamond material" (underlined for amendment; bold for examiner emphasis).
As discussed in the Response to Amendment section above, and not repeated in full here, the present specification simply does not use the phrase "sintered diamond material" or nor does the specification use equivalent variations thereof. Rather the present specification only teaches "As used herein, the term “polycrystalline material” means and includes any material comprising a plurality of grains or crystals of the material that are bonded directly together by inter-granular bond" (present [0029]). "[B]onded" is generalized and broad, and not commensurate with "sintered", as evidenced by Applicant's assertions that this is a meaningful, patentable distinction over the "facing table of polycrystalline diamond or other superhard material bonded to a substrate of less hard material, such as cemented tungsten carbide" disclosure of Newton (col 2:54-56).
In other words, if the "bonded" "polycrystalline diamond" of the prior art does not read on "sintered diamond material" as Applicant currently argues with respect to the prior art, neither does the present disclosure provide 112(a) support for such a limitation. The examiner again notes this is discussed in more detail in the Response above, respectfully not repeated again here. Claims 13-17 depend from claim 12. Claims 19 & 20 depend from claim 18.
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.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,651,421(Newton) in view of US 2013/0043078 (Qian).
Independent claim 12. Newton discloses a drill bit (title), comprising:
a longitudinal axis ("bit axis 13" - fig 1 & col 3:50-55);
a plurality of blades ("three primary blades 11 and three secondary blades 12" - ibid) extending radially outward from the longitudinal axis of the drill bit (figs 1 & 3) along a face region of the drill bit (figs 1 & 3) and extending axially along a gauge region of the drill bit (fig 4);
cutting elements ("Primary cutters 14 are spaced apart side-by-side along each primary blade 11 and secondary cutters 15 are spaced apart side-by-side along each secondary blade 12" - col 3:56-58) comprising polycrystalline compacts including diamond material ("Each cutter 14, 15 is generally cylindrical and of circular cross section and comprises a front facing table of polycrystalline diamond bonded to a cylindrical substrate of cemented tungsten carbide" - col 3:59-62) coupled to the plurality of blades (col 3:56-58);
an ultra abrasion-resistant material ("the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide" - col 6:19-22) on at least a portion of a blade of the plurality of blades in the gauge region ("gauge pads 35 and 36" - ibid); and
diamond inserts comprising polycrystalline compacts ("inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) comprising diamond material (ibid) coupled to the blade in the gauge region (fig 4), each diamond insert of the diamond inserts including an outer surface substantially coplanar with a surface of a respective portion of the gauge region in which the diamond insert is mounted ("abrasion inserts 23" - fig 2; '"each primary gauge pad may include only bearing and/or abrading elements which are substantially flush with the surface of the gauge pad" - col 3:10-13; "the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide, in known manner, and some of the inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:19-26; fig 4).
Newton does not expressly disclose the combined mass of all of the "polycrystalline or natural diamond particles" relative to the total mass of the bit. However, these "diamond particles embedded therein" are clearly relatively small and minimal compared to the mass of the bit as a whole (only two such diamond embedded inserts 38 are shown on pad 35 and, and only three are shown on pad 36). The examiner also emphasizes the disclosure of "diamond particles" ("a very small piece of part; a tiny portion or speck"). These are all clearly and reasonably suggestive that the combined mass of the "diamond particles" embedded in inserts 38 relative to the entire mass of the bit (which is clearly substantially larger) is quite small. However, Newton does not expressly disclose that the combined mass of the diamond material of inserts 38 is less than about 0.5% of a total mass of the drill bit. Further, diamonds are well known to be a cost intensive material, thus motivating the artisan to use as little as reasonable possible so as to help control manufacturing costs.
In light of the above articulated rationale, the examiner respectfully holds that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, as routine optimization, to have the combined mass of the embedded diamond particles in inserts 38 relative to the total mass of the drill bit to be "less than 0.5%" since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (as discussed above; further, there is inherently a mass % difference between these two features), discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. MPEP §2144.05, subsection II(A) & (B).
Newton does not explicitly disclose that the diamond material is sintered. However Qian discloses polycrystalline diamond compacts (title) that may be used in "drilling tools" as "cutting elements, gage trimmers, etc" (¶ 2) as well as "bearing structures" (¶ 2) that include sintered diamond material (" a PCD table sintered using at least one carbonate catalyst material having a bonding region with a relatively high interstitial region concentration that enables effective infiltration therein with a metallic infiltrant for bonding to a substrate, and methods of fabricating such PDCs. The PDCs disclosed herein may be used in a variety of applications, such as rotary drill bits, bearing apparatuses, wire-drawing dies, machining equipment, and other articles and apparatuses" - ¶ 32; see also ¶s 33, 35, 48, 54).
The examiner also notes that Qian also clearly discloses that "a high-pressure/high-temperature ("HPHT") process" is not inherently commensurate with "sintering". ¶ 67: "The assembly 350 may be subjected to an HPHT process using any of the HPHT conditions and pressure transmitting mediums disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the HPHT conditions may include a pressure that is lower than the pressure employed in sintering the PCD table...").
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the sintered polycrystalline diamond material taught by Qian (¶s 2, 32, 33, 35, 48, 54) as the more generalized polycrystalline diamond material taught by Newton. This process improves the thermal stability of the PCD table as well as other specifically identified benefits (¶ 6). The examiner notes Qian teaches these polycrystalline diamond compacts as being appropriate for drill bit cutters, gage elements on drill bit (¶ 2, applicable to elements 14, 15 of Newton) as well as bearing elements (ibid; comparable to "bearing inserts 37" and/or 38 of Newton).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
13. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the at least a portion of the blade (Newton: portions of "gauge pads 35 and 36" which hold "cylindrical bearing inserts 37") comprises an uphole portion of the blade (37 are on the uphole portion of the blades as shown by the annotated version of fig 4 here. The claim is open-ended and does not exclude them be located elsewhere).
14. (Original) The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the at least a portion of the blade comprises an uphole portion of the blade (Newton: upper box in the annotated version of fig 4 above contains some of 37) and a downhole portion of the blade (lower box in the annotated version of fig 4 above which contains some of 37), the uphole portion of the blade separated from the downhole portion of the blade by a central portion of the blade (middle box in the annotated version of fig 4 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
609
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
15. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the diamond inserts (Newton: "inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) are coupled to an uphole portion of the blade (the upper box in the annotated version of fig 4 here). The examiner respectfully notes that claim 15 does not depend from claims 13 or 14, and therefore the examiner is not obliged to use the same definition for "uphole portion" as used in claims 13 or 14. The interpretation applied to claims 13 & 14 work for those claim limitations and the interpretation applied to claim 15 works for that claim, and there is no limitation that requires the same interpretation be applied to both.
16. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein another portion of the blade is radially recessed relative to the at least a portion of the blade (the portions of the blades in the lower box in the annotated version of fig 4 used for claim 15 above are radially recessed relative to gauge pads 35 & 36. Further, "preform cutters 39" are shown on radially recessed portions of their respective blades).
17. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the diamond inserts ("inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) are arranged in a pattern along a leading edge of the blade in the gauge region (fig 4 shows one pattern of 38 on pad 36 of blade 26. Similarly, pad 35 has a differing pattern. These "patterns" are commensurate with the present disclosure and the word "pattern" at the level of generality currently recited).
Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,651,421 (Newton) in view of US 7,776,256 (Smith), and in further view of in view of US 2013/0043078 (Qian).
Independent 18. Newton discloses a method of manufacturing an earth-boring tool ("The methods of manufacturing drill bits of this general type are well known in the art and will not be described in detail" - col 4:15-17), the method comprising:
positioning ultra abrasion-resistant material ("the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide" - col 6:19-22) and diamond inserts comprising polycrystalline compacts ("inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) comprising diamond material (ibid) on a blade ("three primary blades 11 and three secondary blades 12" - col 3:50-55) within a gauge region (fig 4) of a drill bit (title, fig 4), each diamond insert of the diamond inserts including an outer surface substantially coplanar with a surface of a respective portion of the gauge region in which the diamond insert is mounted ("abrasion inserts 23" - fig 2; '"each primary gauge pad may include only bearing and/or abrading elements which are substantially flush with the surface of the gauge pad" - col 3:10-13; "the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide, in known manner, and some of the inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:19-26; fig 4); and
forming the drill bit comprising the diamond inserts and the ultra abrasion-resistant material (fig 4), the ultra abrasion-resistant material ("the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide" - col 6:19-22) on a surface of at least the portion of the blade within the gauge region of the drill bit (fig 4).
Newton does not disclose the details of the manufacturing process recited in the present claim. Rather the manufacturing process is only generally discussed ("The methods of manufacturing drill bits of this general type are well known in the art and will not be described in detail" - col 4:15-17), thus clearly directing the reader elsewhere for a more detailed disclosure regarding specific manufacturing steps.
However Smith discloses a method of manufacturing an earth-boring tool (abstract), the method comprising:
positioning ultra abrasion-resistant material ("FIGS. 3A-3E illustrate a method of forming the bit body 52, which is substantially formed from and composed of a particle-matrix composite material… The powder mixture 78 may include a plurality of the previously described hard particles and a plurality of particles comprising a matrix material" - col 9:47-57) and diamond inserts comprising diamond material ("if thermally stable synthetic diamonds, or natural diamonds, are employed", the diamond inserts "may be provided within the bold and bonded… during infiltration or furnacing of the bit body 12" - col 3:45-51) within a casting mold ("a mold or container 80" - fig 3A & last full ¶ of col 9) corresponding to a portion of a blade ("blades 30") within a gauge region (fig 3C) of a drill bit to be formed (col 10:57-60. Subsequent machining to form blades means that the material in the mold "corresponds to a portion of a blade" as claimed. The diamond inserts 124 taught by Spencer are already in the blade gauge, as cited above, and are in the mold as taught by Smith when thermally stable diamonds are used);
positioning displacements of cutting elements within the casting mold ("During all sintering and partial sintering processes, refractory structures or displacements (not shown) may be used to support at least portions of the bit body during the sintering process to maintain desired shapes and dimensions during the densification process. Such displacements may be used, for example, to maintain consistency in the size and geometry of the cutter pockets 36" - col 11:40-46) corresponding to a face region of the drill bit to be formed ("pockets 36 formed in the face 158 of the bit body 152" - col 14:64-65); and
forming a drill bit comprising the diamond inserts and the ultra abrasion-resistant material (the bit is ultimately formed), the ultra abrasion-resistant material on a surface of at least the portion of the blade within a gauge region of the drill bit (as similarly described for claim 12 above).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the manufacturing method taught by Smith to form the drill bit taught by Newton. As discussed above, Newton discloses the manufacturing only generally, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere. The "mold or container 80" (last full ¶ of col 9) provides the ability to apply isostatic pressure to the powdered mixture (ibid) to sinter the powder.
The combination does not expressly disclose the relative weight / mass % between the ultra-abrasion resistant material and the diamond material relative to the total mass of the drill bit.
The limitation of "a combined mass of the diamond material is less than about 0.5% of a total mass of the drill bit" is held as obvious as similarly described for claim 12 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
The limitation of "the drill bit comprising from 1.0 wt% to 90.0 wt% ultra abrasion-resistant material" is similarly held as obvious by the following rationale. First, Both Newton and Smith disclose that the majority of the bit body is formed of an ultra abrasion-resistant material (Newton: "the bit body, or a part thereof, may be moulded from matrix material using a powder metallurgy process" - first full ¶ of col 4). Smith: "FIGS. 3A-3E illustrate a method of forming the bit body 52, which is substantially formed from and composed of a particle-matrix composite material… The powder mixture 78 may include a plurality of the previously described hard particles and a plurality of particles comprising a matrix material" - col 9:47-57).
Further, both Newton and Smith disclose that a steel blank may be used for the shank / core of the bit, onto which the ultra-abrasion resistant material is connected / formed (Newton: " the bit body and blades may be machined from metal, usually steel, which may be hardfaced. Alternatively the bit body, or a part thereof, may be moulded from matrix material using a powder metallurgy process" - first full ¶ of col 4. Smith: "Alternatively, the bit body may be formed from a particle-matrix composite material. Such materials include hard particles randomly dispersed throughout a matrix material (often referred to as a "binder" material). Such bit bodies typically are formed by embedding a steel blank in a carbide particulate material volume, such as particles of tungsten carbide…" - second full ¶ of col 2. "Shank 70" - fig 2. "Shank 278… may include steel" - fig 7 & col 22:50-52). This shows that the "ultra-abrasion resistant material" does not compose 100% of the body of the bit, but does compose the large majority of the bit.
In light of the above articulated rationale, the examiner respectfully holds that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as routine optimization to have the ultra abrasion-resistant material (taught by both Newton and Smith as cited above) comprise between 1.0 wt% to 90.0 wt% of the drill bit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (as discussed above; further, there is inherently a weight % difference between these two features. The examiner also respectfully notes the broadness of this range and therefore the range can not reasonable said to be critical), discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. MPEP §§2144.05, subsection II(A) & (B).
Newton does not explicitly disclose that the diamond material is sintered. However Qian discloses polycrystalline diamond compacts (title) that may be used in "drilling tools" as "cutting elements, gage trimmers, etc" (¶ 2) as well as "bearing structures" (¶ 2) that include sintered diamond material (" a PCD table sintered using at least one carbonate catalyst material having a bonding region with a relatively high interstitial region concentration that enables effective infiltration therein with a metallic infiltrant for bonding to a substrate, and methods of fabricating such PDCs. The PDCs disclosed herein may be used in a variety of applications, such as rotary drill bits, bearing apparatuses, wire-drawing dies, machining equipment, and other articles and apparatuses" - ¶ 32; see also ¶s 33, 35, 48, 54).
The examiner also notes that Qian also clearly discloses that "a high-pressure/high-temperature ("HPHT") process" is not inherently commensurate with "sintering". ¶ 67: "The assembly 350 may be subjected to an HPHT process using any of the HPHT conditions and pressure transmitting mediums disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the HPHT conditions may include a pressure that is lower than the pressure employed in sintering the PCD table...").
PNG
media_image1.png
609
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the sintered polycrystalline diamond material taught by Qian (¶s 2, 32, 33, 35, 48, 54) as the more generalized polycrystalline diamond material taught by Newton. This process improves the thermal stability of the PCD table as well as other specifically identified benefits (¶ 6). The examiner notes Qian teaches these polycrystalline diamond compacts as being appropriate for drill bit cutters, gage elements on drill bit (¶ 2, applicable to elements 14, 15 of Newton) as well as bearing elements (ibid; comparable to "bearing inserts 37" and/or 38 of Newton).
19. The method of claim 18, wherein positioning ultra abrasion-resistant material within the casting mold comprises positioning spherical cast tungsten carbide particles (Smith: "Tungsten carbide includes, for example, cast tungsten carbide" - col 7:53-24. The examiner respectfully asserts that "a powder of hard particles… of …. carbides [of] W" - col 4:66 to col 5:4 - that are further described as "cast tungsten carbide" - col 7:53-24 - is commensurate with "spherical cast tungsten carbide particles") within the casting mold (Smith: "a mold or container 80" - fig 3A & last full ¶ of col 9).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 5,651,421 (Newton), US 7,776,256 (Smith), & US 2013/0043078 (Qian), in further view of US 2005/0183892 (Oldham).
20. The combination discloses or renders obvious all the limitations of parent claim 18. Smith further discloses flame-spraying (¶ bridging cols 13 & 14; claim 40) the ultra abrasion-resistance material comprising spherical cast tungsten carbide material ("Such hardfacing materials may include a particle-matrix composite material, which may include, for example, particles of tungsten carbide" - ibid. "Tungsten carbide includes, for example, cast tungsten carbide" - col 7:53-24 of Smith) on exterior surfaces of the bit (¶ bridging cols 13 & 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to flame spray a cast tungsten carbide particles hardfacing material on the bit as taught by Smith. This is applied to "selected areas on exterior surfaces of the bit body" (ibid) to provide the well known and understood benefit of increased wear resistance.
The combination does not explicitly disclose that it is specifically on the blade within the gauge region of the drill bit. However Oldham discloses a fixed-cutter matrix bit ("so called 'fixed cutter' drill bits" and "may comprise tungsten carbide composites… to fabricate so called 'matrix body' drill bits" - ¶ 110 & fig 1B) with a hardfacing applied onto the gauge of the blade ("Gage regions 25 comprise longitudinally upward (as the casing bit 12 is oriented during use) extensions of blades 22, extending from nose portion 20 and may have wear-resistant inserts or coatings, such as cutters, natural or synthetic diamond, or hardfacing material, on radially outer surfaces thereof as known in the art to inhibit excessive wear thereto." - ¶ 109).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the hardfacing taught by Smith the gauge of the blades as taught by Oldham. This aids in inhibiting excessive wear on the gauge (¶ 109) which is well known and understood to be a frequently damaged portion of the drill bit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676