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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
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 18 is 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.
In line 2, “a linear pattern defined by a single curve” is confusing. A curve is generally not considered linear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,11-14,17,20-22 and 29-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,186,268 to Clegg (hereinafter “Clegg”).
Clegg discloses a drill bit to advance a borehole comprising a bit body with a central axis and a plurality of blades. Each of the blades contain a plurality of polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDC) cutters. The cutters on adjacent blades have different angular distances between them depending on which blade they are located upon (adjacent blades are separated by different angular distances). This makes the time lag between the cutters on different pairs of adjacent blades different.
In regard to claim 2, blade 16 is shown in figure 2 with a concave portion and a convex portion.
In regard to claim 3, junk slots 28 are channels separating the blades to allow for fluid flow.
In regard to claim 4, the designation of first and second blade is random. Figure 2 shows multiple adjacent pairs.
In regard to claim 5, several of the blades (23 and 24) shown in figure 2 appear to have linear patterns.
In regard to claim 6, blades 17,19 and 20 have a single curve on the face of the blade.
Claim 11 is seen to be anticipated for the reasons given above for claim 1.
In regard to claims 12 and 14, blade 16 is shown in figure 2 with a concave portion and a convex portion. This blade can be either the first or second blade.
In regard to claim 13, several of the blades (23 and 24) shown in figure 2 appear to have linear patterns and blades 17,19 and 20 have a single curve on the face of the blade.
In regard to claim 17, several of the blades (23 and 24) shown in figure 2 appear to have linear patterns.
In regard to claim 20, figure 2 shows blade 16 with a curved profile and adjacent blade 25 having a straight profile. Because of this difference in profile the cutter pairs on these two blades will have different angular distance between pairs sharing a radial distance from the central axis.
In regard to claims 21 and 22, Clegg discloses primary and secondary blades. Blades 16 and 25 are rotationally adjacent and have different profiles, making cutters of equal radial distance on these two blades different angular distances apart from other pairs on the same blades.
In regard to claim 29, the PDC cutters are shown extending through the leading edge of the blades (they will not function properly if they do not).
In regard to claim 30, Clegg shows secondary elements 34 that lag primary PDCs on the blades.
In regard to claims 31 and 32, Clegg shows both primary and secondary blades that are separated by different angles.
In regard to claim 33, Clegg describes cutting element 26 as “comprising a thin front cutting table of polycrystalline diamond bonded to a thicker substrate of cemented tungsten carbide.”
In regard to claim 34-43, Clegg shows blades differing in both shape and orientation, including linear blades, convex curves, concave curves and blades that are aligned and offset from the central axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10,15,16,19 and 23-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The prior art fails to show adjacent blades with different curve patterns comprising at least one concave region and at least one convex region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beaton (US 5,816,346) shows a drill bit with different sweep angles for primary and secondary blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C DOERRLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571) 272-6928. 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.
/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES: /WILLIAM E DONDERO/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993