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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was treated without traverse in view of the reply filed on 04/29/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 5 to 6, the phrase “wherein the toughening agents have volume ratio of in the diamond body ranging from…” uses both “of” and “in” such that it appears “of” should be removed (i.e., a volume ratio in the diamond body ranging from…). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Beers (IE 58714).
Regarding claim 1, De Beers teaches a thermally stable diamond abrasive compact body (meeting claimed ‘a superabrasive compact’) containing a diamond body with a second phase distributed through the diamond mass (Page 2 lines 9-11) where the diamond particles are present in an amount of 80 to 90 percent and the second phase is present in an amount of 10 to 20 percent (the second phase amount anticipating claimed range of ‘about 0.5 to about 40%’ with sufficient specificity in view that the entire disclosed range of 10 to 20 percent lies within the claimed range) (Page 4 lines 21-24). Page 4 also indicates that the second phase will be in the form of a metal, a carbide, and/or an inter-metallic compound (Page 4 lines 13-15). Notably, De Beers teaches the inclusion of powdered carbide, preferably less than 1 micron particles (overlapping the claimed range of ‘about 100 nanometers to about 500 micrometers; Page 6 lines 3-5). Additionally, De Beers teaches a cemented carbide substrate such as cemented tungsten carbide (Page 5 lines 1-2 and/or Page 6 lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 2, De Beers teaches the compact as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches the inclusion of material such as iron (Page 1 lines 9-11).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, De Beers teaches the compact as applied to claim 1 above and teaches the metallic substrate is cemented tungsten carbide which is a metal carbide (Page 5 lines 1-2 and/or Page 6 lines 22-27).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiGiovanni (U.S. 2011/0061942).
Regarding claim 1, DiGiovanni teaches a polycrystalline compact having material disposed in interstitial spaces therein (see Title) wherein the compact has a layer of hard polycrystalline material such as diamond (Paragraph 0034) that is provided to a supporting substrate that may be cemented tungsten carbide (Paragraph 0046 “cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide material”) (Paragraph 0033). Thus, DiGiovanni teaches a superabrasive compact comprising a diamond body and a metallic substrate in direct contact with the diamond body as claimed.
Further, the diamond body comprises larger and smaller grains wherein the average grain size of the smaller grains is from about 1 nm to about 150 nm (Paragraph 0039; meeting claimed ‘plurality of toughening agents’ having sizes ranging from about 100 nm to about 500 nm) and is included in an amount of about 0.5 to about 30% of the polycrystalline material (Paragraph 0042; meeting claimed range of ‘about 0.5 to about 40%’).
Regarding claim 2, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the smaller grains may be coated (Paragraph 0043 “…originates from a coating (not shown in Fig. 1B) disposed on the smaller grains…”) with a material such as a carbide as well as a metal carbide such as SiC, TiC, WC, TaC, etc (Paragraph 0043). Thus, the coated smaller grains would meet the BRI of the claimed ‘toughening agents’ wherein the toughening agents are at least one of tungsten, tantalum, titanium, carbides thereof, etc.
Regarding claim 3, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the smaller grains may be coated (Paragraph 0043 “…originates from a coating (not shown in Fig. 1B) disposed on the smaller grains…”) with a material such as a carbide as well as a metal carbide such as SiC, TiC, WC, TaC, etc (Paragraph 0043). Thus, the toughening agents have at least one coating barrier layer as claimed.
Additionally, DiGiovanni discloses that a multi-layer coated nanoparticle having a carbon shell and a layer of reagent material at least partially coating the carbon shell may be used (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the metallic substrate may be “cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide material” (Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 6, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches various arrangements and regions of the compact (Paragraph 0017) as well as having a working zone or surface that is substantially free of catalyzing material (Paragraph 0017) and/or a zone that is manufactured using a powdery carbonate (Paragraph 0017). Additionally, DiGiovanni describes that the compact can be treated in a leaching operation to remove the catalyzing material (Paragraph 0061).
Thus, the arrangement(s) where a second volume or region having powdery carbonate and/or having been treated by leaching would produce the claimed arrangement where the diamond table has a first volume of the diamonds and second volume of the diamonds wherein the first volume of the diamonds has the toughening agents dispersed in the diamond matrix constituted with diamond grains (i.e., the toughening agents remain and/or were untreated by leaching) and a second volume of the diamonds has no toughening agents (i.e., was manufactured with a different material such as powdery carbonate and/or was subject to leaching).
DiGiovanni acknowledges that the cutter may incorporate regions of different abrasion resistance and/or be formed in use by part of the cutting element wearing (Paragraph 0017).
Thus, it would be obvious to select a desirable arrangement so that regions of different abrasion resistance and/or performance during planned wear over time are achieved.
Regarding claim 7, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 6 above and further teaches that the regions can be arranged in a series of layers (Paragraph 0017; meeting claimed ‘multilayers with boundaries’ because the layers would necessarily have boundaries by the nature of a ‘layer’).
Regarding claim 8, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 6 above and further teaches that the regions can be arranged in a series of concentric rings (Paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 9, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 6 above and further teaches that the regions can be arranged in a series of layers (Paragraph 0017; meeting claimed ‘slices with boundaries’ because the layers meet the BRI of ‘slices’ and the layers would necessarily have boundaries by the very nature of a layer itself).
Regarding claim 10, DiGiovanni teaches the compact as applied to claim 3 above and further teaches that the coating may be a material such as a carbide as well as a metal carbide such as SiC, TiC, WC, TaC, etc (Paragraph 0043).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Griffin et al. (U.S. 2006/0086540) directed to a dual-edge working surfaces for polycrystalline diamond cutting elements (Figures 9A and 9B depict concentric ring arrangement).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights