DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final office action on the merits and in response to amendments filed on 4/14/2026. All currently pending claims have been considered below. 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 are sufficient to overcome the prior art grounds of rejection. New grounds necessitated by amendment respectfully follow. All discussion below is directed to the supplemental amendment filed 4/14/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bit with internal flow ports wherein the longitudinal axis of the ports are offset from the longitudinal centerline of a plenum of the bit body flow path of claims 1 & 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Present figure 4 clearly shows the centerlines of the flow ports all converging at the same central point. This is discussed in more detail in the 112(a) rejections below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1, lines 9 & 10, the phrase "an internal port of the flow channel" should read "the internal port of the flow channel" as "an internal port" is already previously recited. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Claim 7 recites "the internal bit body flow path" which should read "the bit body flow path" so as to use consistent nomenclature with the comparable recitation of claim 1. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Claim 9 recites "the conical profile" which lacks proper antecedent basis in parent claim 1. Therefore, the phrase should read "a conical profile". Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Claim 18 recites "an interior plenum of a bit body" in lines 15 & 16, which should read "an interior plenum of the bit body flow path in the bit body", as all these features but the "plenum" have been previously recited. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a "new matter" rejection per MPEP 608.04(a).
Independent claims 1 & 10 have been amended (in both the original amendment filed 3/9/2026, and the supplemental amendment filed 4/14/2026) to recite "the longitudinal axis of an internal port of the flow channel is offset from the longitudinal centerline of a plenum of the bit body flow path to provide a tangential flow component". Upon careful review of the specification, the examiner respectfully does not find support for this limitation. This limitation appears to be found in Applicant's co-pending application, US serial number 19/037,187 (fig 4B and original claim 1), not the present case.
First, there is no raw textual support in the originally filed claims or specification for this limitation, either implicitly or explicitly. Second, there is no inherent support for this limitation in the originally filed drawings.
In the Remarks filed 3/9/2026, Applicant stats "Claim 1 [has been amended] to clarity the structural relationship between the internal port and the central bore. Specifically, by defining the port axis as 'offset from the longitudinal centerline,' Applicant resolves the Examiner's concern regarding the intersection with the bore surfaces while accurately reflecting the geometry shown in Figures 3 and 4A".
Respectfully, the examiner did not state such concerns in the present case. Further, there is no "figure 4A" in the present case. However, there is a "figure 4A and 4B" in US serial number 19/037,187. It was in that case where the examiner had concerns regarding this feature.
Present figure 4 (there is no present figure 4A) clearly shows the centerlines of the "internal ports" as all converging with each at the same location. If the centerlines of the "internal ports" were "offset", they would not all converge at the same location. And because drawings are not inherently to scale, the need for clear textual support for the limitation in question is even more important. As discussed above, there is simply no originally filed textual support for this limitation. Rather, it is US serial number 19/037,187, figure 4B and originally filed claim 1 that has support for this limitation.
So while this limitation does overcome the prior art grounds of rejection, as discussed in the previous interview, upon full review the examiner can not find reasonable support under 112(a) for this limitation. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and claims 11-17 depend from claim 10.
Independent claim 18 has been amended to recite "a ratio of the fin height (H) to the base (B), H/B, is in a range from 1.5 to 3.
The limitation originally read "a ratio of the fin's height to the base is 2". The number "1.5" is not used in the originally filed specification. Rather, the originally filed specification recites: "And the ratio of the fin’s height to the channel base size is in between 2 and 3" (first full ¶ of page 10 of the as-filed specification).
Applicant's claimed range of "1.5 to 3" is broader than the originally supported range of "2 and 3". Therefore the examiner is respectfully obliged to hold this range as new matter as well.
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.
Claims 2-4, 6, & 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The examiner has again attempted to identify all 112(b) issues but respectfully requests Applicant's Representative propagate appropriate changes throughout the claim sets for any given amendment. "A" and "an" should be used for the initial recitations of features and "the" or "said" should be used for subsequent references to those features. Consistent naming conventions / nomenclature should be used through any claim set.
Claim 2 recites "a blade opposite side of the cutters" which is indefinite relative the recitation in claim 1 of "a trailing face opposite the leader face". The examiner suggests claim 2 be amended to read "the trailing face of the blades opposite the cutters".
Claim 2 recites "a torque on the drill bit with hydrojets of mud" which is indefinite relative claim 1's recitation o0f "the orientation of the high-speed fluid jets is configured to create rotational torque". Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set. Therefore the examiner suggests claim 2 be amended to read "the torque on the drill bit with the high-speed fluid jets
Claims 3 & 4 depend from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites "the hydrojets" which should read "the high-speed fluid jets" as similarly discussed for claim 2 above. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Claim 4 recites "to increase mud flow" which should read "to increase fluid flow" for consistent nomenclature from claim 1. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Claim 6 recites "inside of blades" which should read "inside the blades" for consistent antecedent basis with parent claim 1. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Independent claim 10 recites in line 3 "a flow channel between adjacent blades" and then, in lines 13+, "wherein at least one flow channel is in fluid communication with the bit body flow path… wherein the longitudinal axis an internal port of the flow channel is offset…"
In other words, claim 10 appears to use "flow channel" to describe both the exterior junk slots between the blades (which is traversed by the fluid jets - present figure 2) and the interior flowpaths which provide fluid the blade manifolds (present figure 3). This renders the claim indefinite because of the redundant nomenclature being used to apparently described different features.
Further, as discussed on page 10 of the prior action, claim 10 is directed to "[a] method of drilling a hole in a subsurface formation". However the claim body is conspicuously not directed to a drilling method. Rather the claim is essentially an apparatus claim transformed into a method by reciting "providing" the structural features of the claim. While this is not improper per se, "a method of drilling a hole in a subsurface formation" requires more than a mere assemblage of parts. In other words, it is unclear how the preamble of "a method of drilling a hole" operates in a method that simply does not recite any step that is commensurate with that preamble.
Claims 11-17 depend from claim 10.
Claim 11 recites "the blade's manifold…" which lacks proper antecedent basis in parent claim 10 per the amendments filed 4/14/2026, thus making it unclear how or if claim 11 further limits parent claim 10. Appropriate changes should be propagated through every dependent claim based off the amendments to the independent claims.
Claim 12 recites "each nozzle", which lacks proper antecedent basis in parent claim 10 per the amendments filed 4/14/2026, thus making it unclear how or if claim 12 further limits parent claim 10. Appropriate changes should be propagated through every dependent claim based off the amendments to the independent claims.
Claim 13 recites "increasing the torque on the drill bit by using multiple hydrojets of mud". This is indefinite relative to parent claim 10's recitation of "directing fluid to the respective one of the plurality of cutting elements". It is unclear how or if the recitations of claim 13 differ from the comparable recitations of parent claim 1. Are the "hydrojets" the same as directing fluid" and is the "mud" the same as the "fluid"? Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set. Claims 14 & 15 depend from claim 13.
Claim 14 recites "creating torque momentum through the hydrojets". It is unclear how or if this "torque momentum" differs from the "torque on the drill bit" already in parent claim 13. As previously discussed on page 9 of the non-final rejection, "torque momentum" is not a term of physics. "Torque" and "momentum" are two different things, and the examiner is respectfully unclear what Applicant is attempting to define by combining them. Torque is an angular force applied over a distance / moment (i.e. a lever) with the units of (force)x(distance) and momentum is an aspect of energy, having the units of (mass)x(velocity).
Similarly no "nozzles" are recited in parent claim 10 per the present amendments. It is therefore unclear how or if "a conical, converging nozzle profile" and "the nozzle" operate in a claim that does not previously require "a nozzle". Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set. Claim 15 depends from claim 14.
Claim 15 recites "comprising reducing the power consumption and hazard pollution, formed by the rig's engines which are used to rotate the drill bit and hole string". As similarly discussed on page 12 of the prior action, and not responded to by Applicant, and as similarly discussed with Application 18/491,784 (now US patent 11,988,046), no power consumption, hazard pollution, rig, rig engine, or hole string, or even "use" is previously recited nor inherently required by parent claim 10. Rather, claim 10 just "provides" a drill bit, thus making it unclear how or if claim 15 further limits claim 10. Certainly, a drill bit sitting in a truck unused "reduces the power consumption and hazard pollution", for example.
Further, this recitation is merely purported benefits and, even taken at face value, do not appear to provide any additional limitation to the method. In other words, according to claim 15 itself, it is the previously recited features that produce the results of claim 15. Therefore, what does claim 15 exclude that is encompassed by the parent claims?
Claim 16 recites "increasing the heat rejection from the head of the drill bit to the mud by making the internal cooling channels in the PDC head". First, no mud is recited nor inherently required by claim 10, and it is unclear how or if this mud differs from the "fluid" recited functionally in claim 10. There is simply no drilling mud circulation recitation in claim 10 as a positive method step. The capability of fluid ("for directing fluid…" as worded in claim 10) is not commensurate with the method step of "directing fluid".
Further, "the internal cooling channels" lacks antecedent basis in parent claim 10. What features are being referenced in claim 16? Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Finally, the recitation of "the PDC head" lacks antecedent basis as discussed above. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent basis should be used through every claim set.
Claim 17 recites "providing cooling channels with a rectangular profile with thin fins and a wide base between the fins". This is indefinite relative to the "flow channels between adjacent blades", "bit body flow path", and "at least one flow channel" in parent claim 10. The examiner suggested language for this claim on page 13 of the prior action, but Applicant has simply not responded to this rejection and suggested correction.
Independent claim 18 is "[a] method of drilling a hole in a subsurface formation". However, the body of claim simply recites no drilling steps. Rather the claim is worded as an apparatus semantically turned into a method by "providing" "steps". The examiner holds this to be indefinite as similarly discussed for claim 10 above: How does the preamble of "a method of drilling" operate in a method that simply does not recite drilling?
The examiner has attempted to address all 112(b) issues. However, the examiner respectfully requests Applicant's Representative carefully review the claims for consistent antecedent basis, consistent nomenclature, and other corrections in line with the above issues.
Conclusion
While no prior art rejections are presented, the claims can not be indicated as allowable given the 112(a) and 112(b) issues discussed above.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights