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 10/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 7 and 28-29 are allowed. See the reasons for allowance below.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
First, the examiner notes that the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 20 are made in view of the “face-mounted cutting element 825” in fig. 8 and NOT “top-mounted insert 830”. As shown in fig. 8, the pocket of “face-mounted cutting element 825” does not have “relief opening 852”. Therefore, every argument made with regards to the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 20 with respect to “relief opening 852” are moot.
Also, upon further consideration, the previous 103 rejection made in view of the embodiment of fig. 10-1 and para 0072 have been deleted. See below for the detailed rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 20-27, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 2017/0292330A1) alone.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose a drill bit (110, figs. 1-2 and refer to para 0036; examiner is using the embodiment of fig. 8), comprising: a bit body (211, fig. 2 and para 0039) defining a rotational axis (216, 217, para 0039) and having a plurality of cutter pockets (832; refer to para 0062) formed thereon, each cutter pocket (832) shaped to receive a respective substrate (825) of a cutter (225; see figs. 2, 8, and refer to para 0041);
wherein each cutter pocket (832) has an inner profile (profile along the wall of pocket 832) that includes a bottom surface (see fig. 8 below) and a back surface (see fig. 8 below), wherein at least a portion of the bottom surface includes an annular groove (see fig. 8 below), wherein the annular groove defines an area of increased braze gap between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and an outer profile of the respective substrate (as shown in fig. 8 below, the brazing material in the annular groove is “increased” relative to the other sections of the pocket), wherein the annular groove (see fig. 8 below) spans less than 180 degrees (the groove shown in fig. 8 below span less than 180 degrees because the portion of body 822 does not extend up to the opposite side of the annular groove, as shown below), and wherein the annular groove extends axially along the cutter pocket from a pocket front of the cutter pocket toward a pocket back of the cutter pocket (as shown in fig. 8 below); and
a braze interface comprising a braze alloy (para 0062: “by brazing”) disposed in each cutter pocket (832) between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and the outer profile of the respective substrate (as shown in fig. 8), such that a thickness of the braze alloy is greater at the area of increased braze gap (as shown in fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
306
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. further shows the annular groove covering an axial length of the overall length of the cutter pocket as shown above.
However, Zhang et al. is silent to the axial length being between 30% to 90% of an overall length of the cutter pocket.
Since Zhang et al. teach that the groove covers an axial length of the overall length of the cutter pocket, but is silent to the specific range of 30% to 90%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove of Zhang to have an axial length of between 30% to 90% of an overall length of the cutter pocket, since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (the groove greater than 0% and less than 100% of the overall length) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. disclose a uniform gap between the inner and outer profiles outside the area of increased braze gap (fig. 8: a uniform gap is defined around the bottom and back surface).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. disclose the braze interface includes a region of compression (at the bottom and back surface) and a region of tension (at or around the face) under a drilling loading, and wherein the area of increased braze gap is positioned in the cutter pocket within the region of tension (as shown in fig. 8. Refer to para 0061-0062).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. disclose a braze joint (see fig. 8 and refer to para 0062), comprising:
a cutter substrate (830) having an outer profile (as shown in fig. 8);
a cutter pocket (832; refer to para 0062) for receiving the cutter substrate (825) and having an inner profile (profile along the wall of pocket 832) that conforms to the outer profile of the substrate (see fig. 8 above), wherein the inner profile includes a bottom surface (see fig. 8 above) and a back surface (see fig. 8 above), wherein at least a portion of the bottom surface includes an annular groove (see fig. 8 above), wherein the annular groove defines an area of increased braze gap between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and an outer profile of the substrate (as shown in fig. 8 above, the brazing material in the annular groove is “increased” relative to the other sections of the pocket), and wherein the annular groove extends axially along the cutter pocket from a pocket front of the cutter pocket toward a pocket back of the cutter pocket (as shown in fig. 8 above); and
a braze interface comprising a braze alloy (para 0062: “by brazing”) disposed in the cutter pocket (832) between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and the outer profile of the cutter substrate (as shown in fig. 8), whereby the braze alloy has a greater thickness in the area of increased braze gap (as shown in fig. 8).
Zhang et al. further shows the annular groove covering an axial length of the overall length of the cutter pocket as shown above.
However, Zhang et al. is silent to the axial length being between 30% to 90% of an overall length of the cutter pocket.
Since Zhang et al. teach that the groove covers an axial length of the overall length of the cutter pocket, but is silent to the specific range of 30% to 90%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove of Zhang to have an axial length of between 30% to 90% of an overall length of the cutter pocket, since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (the groove greater than 0% and less than 100% of the overall length) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 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.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang et al. disclose a method of drilling a wellbore (see fig. 2), comprising (examiner is using the embodiment of fig. 8):
rotating a bit body (211, fig. 2 and para 0039) about a rotational axis (216, 217, para 0039) with a plurality of cutters (225; see figs. 2, 8, and refer to para 0041) received into respective cutter pockets (832; refer to para 0062) on the bit body (see figs. 2 and 8),
wherein each cutter pocket (832) has an inner profile (profile along the wall of pocket 832) that includes a bottom surface (see fig. 8 above) and a back surface (see fig. 8 above), wherein at least a portion of the bottom surface (see fig. 8 above) includes an annular groove (see fig. 8 above), wherein the annular groove defines an area of increased braze gap between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and an outer profile of a respective substrate of the cutter (as shown in fig. 8 above, the brazing material in the annular groove is “increased” relative to the other sections of the pocket), wherein the annular groove spans less than 180 degrees (the groove shown in fig. 8 highlighted above span less than 180 degrees because the portion of body 822 does not extend up to the opposite side of the annular groove, as shown below), and wherein the annular groove extends axially along the cutter pocket from a pocket front of the cutter pocket toward a pocket back of the cutter pocket (as shown in fig. 8 above), and
wherein a braze interface comprising a braze alloy (para 0062: “by brazing”) disposed in each cutter pocket between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and the outer profile of the respective substrate (as shown in fig. 8), such that a thickness of the braze alloy is greater at the area of increased braze gap (as shown in fig. 8).
Zhang et al. further shows the annular groove covering an axial length of the overall length of the cutter pocket as shown above.
However, Zhang et al. is silent to the axial length being between 30% to 90% of an overall length of the cutter pocket.
Since Zhang et al. teach that the groove covers an axial length of the overall length of the cutter pocket, but is silent to the specific range of 30% to 90%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove of Zhang to have an axial length of between 30% to 90% of an overall length of the cutter pocket, since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (the groove greater than 0% and less than 100% of the overall length) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 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.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the shape of each cutter pocket is configured to increase the resultant braze thickness at one or more regions of the braze interface to spread out or otherwise redistribute the loading at the braze interface (refer to para 0061-0062: stress relief to reduce stress concentrations), wherein the one or more regions are identified in response to determining an expected loading each cutter of the plurality of cutters (refer to para 0060-0061: determining that the stress concentration is at the surface of the blade).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the one or more regions include regions where the braze interface is expected to be in tension (refer to para 0004, 0007, 0008) and wherein the shape of each cutter pocket includes a respective annular groove positioned at a corresponding region of the one or more regions where the braze interface is expected to be in tension (refer to para 0008, 0061, and 0062).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the area of increased braze gap further comprises a recess on a bottom end of the at least one cutter pocket (recess not labeled on the bottom end of the pocket receiving 825).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang et al. is silent to wherein the annular groove spans between 60 degrees and 120 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutter/pocket arrangement in the embodiment of fig. 8 to have the annular groove span between 60 degrees and 120 degrees, for the purpose of preventing the cutting element from loosening from the pocket due to forces and vibration during drilling operation (refer to para 0004).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 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.
Regarding claim 25, Zhang et al. disclose wherein at least a portion of the annular groove has a taper (as broadly claimed, see fig. 8 below), and wherein the area of increased braze gap includes a variable thickness at least partially defined by the taper (see fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
490
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the taper is in a direction from the pocket front of the cutter pocket toward the pocket back of the cutter pocket (as shown in fig. 8 above).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang et al. in the embodiment of fig. 8, is silent to a spacer disposed between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and the outer profile of the respective substrate. However, Zhang et al., in para 0045 teach that a combination of brazing material and one or more mechanical fasteners, such as pin (See US Patent 3,563,325; fig. 5, pin 48), screw, set screw, and clip may be used to secure the cutting element to the pocket. Examiner note that this is consistent with [0055] of applicant’s specification “for example, a pin”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of fig. 8 to include a spacer disposed between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and the outer profile of the respective substrate, to further secure the cutting element to the pocket (refer to para 0045).
Regarding claim 30, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the annular groove spans less than 180 degrees (the groove shown in fig. 8 above span less than 180 degrees because the portion of body 822 does not extend up to the opposite side of the annular groove, as shown below).
Regarding claim 31, Zhang et al. fail to teach wherein the annular groove extends a full 360 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutter/pocket arrangement in the embodiment of fig. 8 to have the annular groove extend a full 360 degrees, for the purpose of preventing the cutting element from loosening from the pocket due to forces and vibration during drilling operation (refer to para 0004).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 2017/0292330A1), in view of N.A. Bylund (U.S. 2,784,943).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. disclose all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Zhang et al et al. fail to teach wherein the thickness of the braze alloy along the area of increased braze gap is between 0.010 inches and 0.040 inches.
N.A. Bylund teaches a drill bit body (1, fig. 3) comprising a cutter (2, fig. 3) located in a cutter pocket (6). A brazing alloy (col. 1, lines 15-25) is disposed along a gap between the cutter and the cutter pocket with a thickness of the braze alloy along the gap between 0.08 inches and 0.050 inches (refer to col. 1, lines 55-67). It is known that a relatively thin layer of brazing metal has a greater strength than a thicker layer (refer to col. 1, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the area of increased braze gap of Zhang et al. to have the thickness of the braze alloy between 0.010 inches and 0.040 inches, as taught by N.A. Bylund, for the purpose of optimizing the strength of the brazing alloy since it is known that a relatively thin layer of brazing metal has a greater strength than a thicker layer (refer to col. 1, lines 15-20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 2017/0292330A1), in view of Prajapati et al. (U.S. 2012/0090900A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. disclose all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Zhang et al. is silent to wherein the braze alloy comprises at least one alloy selected from the group consisting of a copper alloy, a nickel alloy, a silver alloy, a gold alloy, and combinations thereof.
Prajapati et al. teach a drill bit (110, fig. 18) comprising a cutter (400, figs. 8a-8b) located in a cutter pocket (600). A brazing alloy (770; refer to para 0053) is disposed along a gap between the cutter and the cutter pocket (see figs. 2A, 3A, and 7-8), wherein the braze alloy comprises at least one alloy selected from the group consisting of a copper alloy, a nickel alloy, a silver alloy, a gold alloy, and combinations thereof (refer to para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic braze alloy of Zhang et al. with one alloy selected from the group consisting of a copper alloy, a nickel alloy, a silver alloy, a gold alloy, and combinations thereof, as taught by Prajapati et al., based on the temperature of the brazing material (refer to para 0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 28-29 are allowed.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. disclose a drill bit (110, figs. 1-2 and refer to para 0036; examiner is using the embodiment of figs. 10-1, 10-2), comprising
a bit body (211, fig. 2 and para 0039) defining a rotational axis (216, 217, para 0039) and having a plurality of cutter pockets (832; refer to para 062) formed thereon, each cutter pocket (832) shaped to receive a respective substrate (825) of a cutter (225; see figs. 2, 8, and refer to para 0041);
wherein each cutter pocket (832) has an inner profile (profile along the wall of pocket 832) that includes a bottom surface (see fig. 8 above) and a back surface (see fig. 8 above), wherein an annular groove (see fig. 8 above) including at least a portion of the bottom surface having a taper (as broadly claimed, see fig. 8 below) in a direction from a pocket front of the cutter pocket toward a pocket back of the cutter pocket (see fig. 8 above),
wherein the annular groove at least partially defines an area of increased braze gap between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and an outer profile of the respective substrate (as shown in fig. 8, the brazing material in the annular groove is “increased” relative to the other sections of the pocket), wherein the area of increased braze gap extends along the taper between the cutter pocket and the substrate (as shown in fig. 8 below), wherein the area of increased braze gap includes a variable thickness at least partially defined by the taper of the annular groove (as shown in fig. 8 blow); and
a braze interface comprising a braze alloy (para 0062: “by brazing”) disposed in each cutter pocket between the inner profile of the cutter pocket and the outer profile of the respective substrate (as shown in fig. 8), such that a thickness of the braze alloy is greater at the area of increased braze gap (as shown in fig. 8).
However, Zhang et al. fail to teach that the annular groove further includes at least a portion of a back surface of the cutter pocket having a taper in a direction from the bottom surface toward a pocket top of the cutter pocket. As shown in fig. 8, the annular groove is not also at a portion of a back surface of the cutter pocket and having a taper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672