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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 9 recites the term “the ceramic dam- receiving pocket” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the term “the ceramic dam- receiving pocket” corresponds to “the cutter pockets” previously recited in claim 1. If so, the term “the ceramic dam- receiving pocket” should be amended as “the cutter pockets”.
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) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 20140102011 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses
A method of forming an overlay between cutter pockets (40 and 42, see fig.4) of a polycrystalline diamond rock bit (10, see fig.1-4 and see abstract, para.004: “ Drill bits, such as Polycrystalline Diamond Compact or Polycrystalline Diamond Cutter "PDC" bits”), the method comprising:
inserting a plurality of ceramic dams (30 and 32, see fig.4 and para.0032: “the displacements 30, 32 are formed of … a ceramic material”) respectively into the cutter pockets 40 and 42, see fig.4) of the polycrystalline diamond rock bit (10, see fig.1); and
applying a hardfacing material (34, see fig.4) using a plasma are welding process onto a substrate (28, see fig.4 and para.0026) of the polycrystalline diamond rock bit (10, see fig.1) in spaces between the plurality of ceramic dams (30 and 32) so as to form the overlay (See fig.4).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson further discloses the substrate is a steel body (See para.0035: “steel substrate 28”).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson further discloses the hardfacing material is tungsten carbide (see para.0028: “The hardfacing material 34 may be comprised of a mixture of tungsten carbide”).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Ghosh US 20220243578 A1
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except
the plurality of ceramic dams are electrically non- conductive.
Ghosh discloses composite products comprising electronic devices joined to a body of polycrystalline diamond (PCD) material, wherein
the plurality of ceramic dams (134, see fig.1B) are electrically non- conductive (See para.0056: “ electrically insulating base plate 134, which may comprise or consist essentially of electrically insulating ceramic material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the plurality of ceramic dams of Johnson to be electrically non- conductive as taught by Ghosh. Doing so allows to control heat distribution to protect the bit structure.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Overstreet (US20160168918A1)
Regarding claim 3, Johnson discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except each of the plurality of ceramic dams has a cylindrical shape.
Overstreet discloses Methods of repairing cutting element pockets in earth-boring tools with depth-of-cut control features, comprising:
each of the plurality of ceramic dams (66, see fig.5 and para.0046) has a cylindrical shape (see para.0046: “the temporary displacement member 66 also may be at least substantially cylindrical “).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make “each of the plurality of ceramic dams has a cylindrical shape” as taught by Overstreet , because Applicant has not disclosed the “cylindrical shape” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Johnson/Overstreet’s shape.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Olsen US 20130000982 A1
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Johnson discloses the hardfacing material is tungsten carbide (see para.0028: “The hardfacing material 34 may be comprised of a mixture of tungsten carbide”), except the hardfacing material is tungsten carbide in a chrome-nickel-silicon-boron matrix.
Olsen discloses a matrix powder composition for use along with a binder to form a hard composite material, comprising:
hardfacing material is tungsten carbide in a chrome-nickel-silicon-boron matrix (See para.0036).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hardfacing material of Johnson to be tungsten carbide in a chrome-nickel-silicon-boron matrix as taught by Olsen. Doing so provides the toughness, corrosion resistance, and bond strength needed to protect the substrate and extend service life in severe industrial environments.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Cheng (US 20120312598 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Johnson discloses having the cutter pockets into the substrate of the polycrystalline diamond rock bit see fig.4), except drilling the cutter pockets into the substrate of the polycrystalline diamond rock bit.
Cheng discloses earth-boring drill bits, comprising:
drilling the cutter pockets into the substrate (see para.003: “ drilled holes through the substrate”) of the polycrystalline diamond rock bit (100, see fig.1 and para.0022).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Johnson’s method to have the step of “drilling the cutter pockets into the substrate” as taught by Cheng. Doing so reduces tool stress, improves chip evacuation, and prevents premature tool wear or breakage.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson in view of Cheng further discloses the step of inserting comprising:
sliding the plurality of ceramic dams (30 and 32, see fig.4) into the respective drilled cutter pockets (40 and 42 of Johnson are drilled by Cheng’s teachings, see rejection of claim 7) prior to the step of applying the hardfacing material (34, see fig.4 and para.0026).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson
Regarding claim 9, In fig.4, Johnson does not expressly disclose
removing the plurality of ceramic dams from the cutter pockets after the step of applying the hardfacing material;
inserting the polycrystalline diamond bits respectively into the ceramic dam- receiving pocket; and brazing the installed polycrystalline diamond bits to the polycrystalline diamond rock bit.
However, as shown in figs 5-6, Johnson discloses
removing the ceramic dam (displacement, see para.0037 and fig.5) from the cutter pocket (44, see fig.4) after the step of applying the hardfacing material (46, see fig.5 and para.0037: “ he displacement has been chipped out along with the hardfacing material that had flowed over the top surface of the displacement”);
inserting the polycrystalline diamond bits (48, see fig.6) respectively into the ceramic dam- receiving pocket (44, see fig.6); and brazing the installed polycrystalline diamond bits to the polycrystalline diamond rock bit (See para.0037: “the cutter 48 that is brazed into the repaired pocket 44 is fully supported by the hardfacing material 46 because there is no gap between the hardfacing material 46 and the cutter 48”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Johnson’s method to applied to teachings of fig.5-6 so as the method includes the steps of “removing the plurality of ceramic dams from the cutter pockets after the step of applying the hardfacing material; inserting the polycrystalline diamond bits respectively into the ceramic dam- receiving pocket; and brazing the installed polycrystalline diamond bits to the polycrystalline diamond rock bit” as claimed. Doing so provides “Deburring sizing and cleaning operations prepare the pocket for a cutter” and allows to forms a strong metallurgical bond between cutters, hardfacing material and base metal of the substrate.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Luce US 20100104736 A1
Regarding claim 10, Johnson discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the step of applying the hardfacing material is robot- controlled.
Luce discloses a system and method for the automated or "robotic" application of hardfacing to a surface of a drill bit, comprising:
the step of applying the hardfacing material is robot- controlled (See abstract and fig.5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Johnson’s method to have “the step of applying the hardfacing material is robot- controlled” as taught by Luce. Robotic systems can follow precisely programmed paths, ensuring uniform bead placement, deposition rate, and coating thickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US5535838A discloses a method to apply a high performance overlay to a metal substrate of a rock bit to render the substrate surfaces of the rock bit more resistant to erosion, corrosion and substrate cracking while performing in an earthen formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights