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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of CN 2310126026.X filed February 17, 2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed July 27, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
July 27, 2026
Amended
6, 8-14
Cancelled
1-5, 7
Pending
6, 8-15
The applicant argues the technical features of original claim 7 have been incorporated into claim 6 (p. 11 para. 4).
Withdrawn Abstract Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to abstract amendment:
Being more than 150 words.
Line 4 using legal phraseology “consists of”.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 10 line 5 “is as the following”.
Claim 12 Line 3 “Co-WC”.
Claim 13 line 3 “n layers is”.
Claim 14 line 6 “the top layer”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 6 line 7 “according to designed components of each layer in the ripple-shaped gradient layer”.
Claim 6 line 8 “N groups”.
Claim 6 lines 9-10 “performing 3D printing on the polycrystalline diamond layer granular material to obtain a polycrystalline layer green body”.
Claim 9 lines 9-11 “in response to printing the PVA, a diameter of a nozzle…, a layer height…, an extrusion rate…, and an extrusion flow rate…”.
Claim 6 lines 9-14 “performing 3D printing on the polycrystalline diamond layer granular material…; printing polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and the N groups of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials…”.
Claim 9 lines 11-14 “in response to printing the N groups of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials, a diameter of a nozzle…, a layer height…, an extrusion rate…, and an extrusion flow rate…”.
Claim 11 line 11 “(t/2 to t) mm to t mm”.
Claim 11 line 11 “set to a gradient”.
Claim 13 line 3 “n layers”.
Claim 14 lines 4 and 7 “the polycrystalline diamond”.
Claim 14 line 8 “the cemented carbide”.
Response to Remarks filed July 27, 2026
Zhang (CN 114515833 machine translation) in view of Eyre (US 6,193,001) and Kumaki (US 2020/0055256)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 18 para. 3, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to Zhang in view of Eyre and Kumaki have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Zhang in view of Eyre and Kumaki has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 6 incorporates the technical features of allowable claim 7 (p. 18 para. 3).
Wang (CN 113976892 machine translation) in view of Chang (US 2018/0087134), Eyre (US 6,193,001), and Kumaki (US 2020/0055256)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 18 para. 3, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to Wang in view of Chang, Eyre, and Kumaki have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Wang in view of Chang, Eyre, and Kumaki has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 6 incorporates the technical features of allowable claim 7 (p. 18 para. 3).
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Line 3 uses legal phraseology “comprises”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided.
Claim Objection
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 “an operation of degreasing” does not refer back to degreasing as recited in claim 6 line 19, such that it can be interpreted as introducing a different degreasing operation into the process of claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 lines 9-11 “a spacing between an upper ripple and a lower ripple of a top layer is set to a change in slope from t/2 mm to t mm from a peak to a trough” fails to comply with the written description requirement. With respect to “a peak to a trough” spacing, applicant’s specification does not recite this feature being related to “a change in slope”.
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 6 and 8-15 are 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.
Claim 6 lines 9-10 “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if one group refers to one mixture with one set proportion of a second diamond powder, a WC-Co alloy powder, and a second binder or if one group refers to multiple mixtures with multiple set proportions of a second diamond powder, a WC-Co alloy powder, and a second binder. For the purpose of examination claim 6 “at least one group” will be interpreted as a group referring to one mixture with one set proportion of a second diamond powder, a WC-Co alloy powder, and a second binder.
Claim 6 line 2 “a ripple-shaped gradient layer”, lines 9-10 “to obtain at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials”, and lines 13-16 “printing…at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials…to obtain a ripple-shaped gradient layer green body…” render the claim indefinite.
The amended claim limitation to obtain “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials” encompasses obtaining one group of rippled-shaped gradient layer granular materials. It is unclear how one group obtains a gradient layer green body.
Previous claim 6 line 8 recites “N groups”, where the plurality of the word “groups” requires more than one.
Claim 11 line 4 “the ripple-shaped gradient layer of a multi-layer structure” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 11 depends from claim 6, which recites in lines 9-10 “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials”. It is unclear how one group of rippled-shaped gradient layer granular materials results in a multi-layer structure. One group, having one composition, even if printed of multiple layers, would form one final layer of one composition.
Claim 11 lines 6-7 “in the rippled-shaped gradient layer, a content of polycrystalline diamond increases from bottom to top, and a content of cemented carbide decreases from bottom to top” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 11 depends from claim 6, which recites in lines 9-10 “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials”. It is unclear how one group of rippled-shaped gradient layer granular materials can have the claimed contents that respectively increase and decrease from bottom to top. One group, having one composition, would not have an increase in polycrystalline diamond content or a decrease in cemented carbide content.
Claim 11 lines 9-11 “a spacing between an upper ripple and a lower ripple of a top layer is set to a change in slope from t/2 mm to t mm from a peak to a trough” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a ripple spacing from a peak to a trough is related to a change in slope that is based on t, a spacing between an upper ripple and a lower ripple.
Claim 11 lines 11-12 “spacing…of remaining layers…” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “remaining layers” refers to. Claim 11 depends from claim 6, which recites in lines 9-10 “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials”. It is unclear how one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials can have “remaining layers”, which appears to require multiple rippled-shaped gradient layers.
Claim 13 line 3 “the ripple-shaped gradient layer is divided into 3 to 16 layers” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 13 depends from claim 6, which recites in lines 9-10 “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials”. It is unclear how the 3 to 16 layers relates to the at least one of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials. It is unclear if each layer requires its own group of rippled-shaped gradient layer granular materials or if multiple layers can use the same rippled-shaped gradient layer granular materials.
Claim 14 lines 4-10 “a volume fraction of a polycrystalline diamond from the second diamond powder in a bottom layer is 5 to 15%, and the volume fraction increases by 5 to 30% for each layer from a next bottom layer to a top layer; a volume fraction of the polycrystalline diamond in the top layer is 75 to 95%; and a volume fraction of cemented carbide from the WC-Co alloy powder in the bottom layer is 85 to 95%, and then the volume fraction decreases by 5 to 30% for each layer from the next bottom layer to the top layer” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 14 depends from claim 6, which recites in lines 9-10 “at least one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials”. It is unclear how one group of ripple-shaped gradient layer granular materials can have the claimed contents that respectively increase and decrease from bottom to top. One group, having one composition, would not have an increase in polycrystalline diamond content or a decrease in cemented carbide content.
Claims 8-10, 12, and 15 are rejected as depending from claim 6.
Related Art
The following reference discloses a polycrystalline diamond composite having a gradient layer, but is silent to a ripple-shape and 3D printing: CN 101487121.
The following reference is applicant’s related work that was published after the instant application: CN 117431448.
The following reference discloses a polycrystalline diamond composite with a ripple-shape: CN 214266843.
The following reference discloses a top surface of the cemented carbide substrate and a bottom surface of the polycrystalline diamond layer both being ripple-shaped: US 5,906,4526.
The following reference discloses the amplitude and wavelength of a ripple-shaped surface structure in a polycrystalline composite material: US 2015/0285007.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-10, and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Zhang (CN 114515833 machine translation) in view of Eyre (US 6,193,001) and Kumaki (US 2020/0055256) discloses preparing a polycrystalline diamond composite sheet having a gradient layer (Zhang [n0001], [n0007], [n0016], [n0023], [n0028]-[n0029], [n0032]-[n0037], [n0040]-[n0045]; Eyre 1:5-46, 2:15-55, Figs. 3-13; Kumaki [0001], [0004]-[0005], [0008]-[0011], [0013]). Zhang discloses a particle size of the diamond powder is 0.5 to 100 um (preferably 0.1-0.3 mm, 100-300 um), and a particle size of the WC-Co alloy powder is 0.5 to 150 um (preferably 0.03-0.08 mm, 30 to 80 um) ([n0017]-[n0018]) and a slurry solids content of 45 to 75 wt% ([n0022]).
Similarly, Wang (CN 113976892 machine translation) in view of Chang (US 2018/0087134), Eyre US 6,193,001), and Kumaki (US 2020/0055256) disclose a preparation method of a polycrystalline diamond composite sheet (Wang [n0001], [n0004]-[n0005], [n0007]-[n0008], [0011], [0015], [0035], [0036], [0039], [n0024], [n0026], [n0029], [0049], [0057]; Eyre 1:5-46, 2:15-55, Figs. 3-13; Chang [0017], [0020], [0034], [0036], [0038]; Kumaki [0001], [0004]-[0005], [0008]-[0011, [0013]). Wang also discloses a particle size of 0.5 to 100 um ([n0007]-[n0009], [0035]-[0036], [n0024], [n0026]).
Zhang and Wang are silent to the claimed binder. Paraffin wax, polymethylmethacrylate, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, low-density polyethylene, epoxidized soybean oil, and stearic acid are known binder materials (Inoue, US 5,206,010, 2:55 to 4:3; Sugiyama, JP S62-276537 machine translation, pp. 2-3).
However, the prior art does not teach or suggest either alone or in combination the claimed combination of these binder materials, including the respectively recited mass percentages, in combination with the preparation method of the polycrystalline diamond composite sheet of claim 6, including the respective particle sizes, the binder to diamond powder mass ratio, and the recited binder to (diamond powder + WC-Co alloy powder).
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights