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 .
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.
Claim(s) ??asdasd is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martensson (US 20200030886 A1), hereinafter Mar, in light of Norgren (US 20080314200 A1), hereinafter Nor.
With respect to claim 1, Mar discloses a rock drill insert (fig. 1, abstract) comprising a body of cemented carbide comprising hard constituents of WC in a binder phase comprising cobalt (abstract); wherein the cemented carbide comprises 4-18 wt % Co; Cr such that the Cr/Co mass ratio in the innermost part of the rock drill insert is 0.04 -0.19; a balance of WC and any unavoidable impurities (abstract); wherein content of the binder phase of the cemented carbide is substantially equal throughout the rock drill insert (pgph. 60, 64, the powders are milled together for hours and then pressed and sintered which will result in a uniform distribution of materials, no gradients are disclosed in Mar); a hardness of at least 800 HV20 wherein hardness is measured according to EN ISO 6507-1:2005 (E) (this is simply the measurement standard for Vickers hardness, the values above 800 HV are demonstrated in tables 1, 6, and 7, and while examiner accepts that a HV3 value might be slightly larger than a HV20 value due to the different loads used in the measurement process, the difference in these values will not be greater than 600); wherein a WC grain size mean value of the cemented carbide is above 0.7 um but less than 18 um (pgph. 13) as measured according to Jeffries method (pgph. 68, the method used to measure the grain size is not relevant since Mar discloses nearly the entire range claimed) and is substantially free of eta-phase (pgph. 21) wherein eta-phase is M6C or M12C where M = (Co,W, Cr).
However, Mar fails to disclose the corrected ratio claimed.
Nevertheless, Nor discloses wherein insert has a corrected CoM / wt% Co ratio between 0.70 - 0.81 wherein said corrected CoM / wt% Co ratio is calculated according to: Corrected CoM / wt% Co = (magnetic-% Co + 1.13 * wt% Cr) / wt% Co where magnetic-% Co is the weight percentage of magnetic Co and wt-% Co and wt-% Cr are the weight percentage of Co and Cr in the cemented carbide, respectively (pgph. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the corrected ratio in Mar as taught by Nor (pgph. 22) since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results and a reasonable expectation for success.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Mar discloses wherein the cobalt content is between 8-18wt% (abstract, pgph. 64) and wherein the cobalt content is between 4-8wt% (abstract, pgph. 60).
With respect to claims 4, Nor discloses wherein the corrected CoM / wt% Co is between 0.73 - 0.79 (pgph. 22, Nor, about .79 is between .73 and .79, further Nor suggests the use of .75-.8 for a high W-content).
With respect to claims 5-12, Mar further discloses wherein the difference between an average hardness at 0.3 mm below the surface of the rock drill insert and an average hardness in the innermost part of the rock drill insert is at least 30 HV3 wherein hardness is measured according to EN ISO 6507-1:2005 (E) (pgphs. 28, 31), wherein the difference between the hardness at any point 0.3 mm below the surface of the rock drill insert and the hardness at 1 mm below the surface of the rock drill insert is at least 20 HV3 (pgph. 27), wherein a WC grain size mean value of the cemented carbide is above or equal to 1 um but less than 10 um (pgph. 13, table 2), wherein the mass ratio Cr/Co in the cemented carbide is between 0.075 - 0.15 (pgph. 15), wherein the mass ratio Cr/Co in the cemented carbide is between 0.05 - 0.12 (pgphs. 15, 17), and wherein said cemented carbide has a hardness in the innermost part of the rock drill insert of not higher than 1750 HV20 (pgph. 37).
With respect to claim 13, Mar discloses wherein the corrected CoM / wt% Co ratio is substantially equal throughout the volume of the insert (since the powders are milled together for hours and then pressed and sintered and no gradients are disclosed in Mar, a uniform distribution of materials will be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Also, Nor does not disclose a gradient in materials or properties, also see pgph. 97 of Mar for untreated inserts).
With respect to claim 14, Mar discloses a rock drill bit body comprising one or more mounted rock drill inserts (pgph. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11236408 B1 discloses a similar insert with no eta phase (col. 6 ll. 30-36). US 20090283331 A1 discloses that the harness standard claimed is the normal Vickers hardness testing standard (pgph. 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 06/09/2026
Prosecution Insights