DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 3 June 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 1-6 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 without traverse of Group II, claims 7-20, in the reply filed on 3 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 June 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Office Action on 28 May 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification collectively groups multiple Figures at least at paragraphs [0010] and [0011] of the Brief Description of the Drawings. The examiner strongly recommends identifying each Figure in its own paragraph with a separate description to reduce the opportunities for confusion as to how many and which Figures are encompassed by the range cited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the thermal cycle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 7-10
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0053349 to Nielsen (hereinafter “Nielsen”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0027595 to Palm (hereinafter “Palm”).
Regarding claim 7, Nielsen discloses a method for manufacturing a bit (10) from a composite including providing the bit (10) comprising a body (12; see also paragraph [0006], matrix phase) and a metallic connection (22, 24; see paragraph [0048]). Nielsen does not explicitly disclose that the yield strength of the metallic connection is less than 90 ksi and applying a heat treatment. Nielsen teaches that its composite may be made of metal alloys (see paragraphs [0035]-[0037]).
Palm teaches forming a metal product from an alloy from a powder (see paragraphs [0019]-[0021]). The metal product may have a yield strength of less than 90 ksi (see paragraph 0047]; yield strength between 350 and 800 MPa is approximately 50.7ksi to 116 ksi, which overlaps 90 ksi). Palm further teaches applying a heat treatment to the product such that, following the heat treatment the yield strength of the material is higher than without the heat treatment (see paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that where the initial yield strength of the material is almost 90 ksi (approximately 620 MPa), performing the heat treatment as taught by Palm would raise the yield strength to another value, such as 625 MPa, exceeding 90 ksi. The MPEP teaches that where the claimed range lies within ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Yield strengths of 90 ksi or 620 MPa lie within the disclosed range, and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a non-heat treated yield strength can be selected such that the heat treatment will cause the increased yield strength to exceed 90 ksi.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the drill bit assembly method taught by Nielsen to include a conventional heat treating process as taught by Palm. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would advantageously produce a component having increased strength, which one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect would provide improved durability.
Thus, the combination of Nielsen and Palm teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nielsen and Palm teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further Nielsen teaches infiltrating a matrix powder (see paragraph [0017]) with an infiltrant (see paragraph [0017]) to form the matrix body prior to applying the new heat treatment, wherein infiltrating the matrix powder comprises: heating the matrix body (mixture is heated; paragraph [0017]) and the metallic connection to an infiltration temperature; and removing an existing heat treatment of the metallic connection (see paragraph [0042]; heat sufficient to melt alloy understood to be sufficient to reduce or remove properties from any previous heat treating).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nielsen and Palm teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further Nielsen teaches after applying the new heat treatment, preparing a threaded connection at a connection portion of the metallic connection (see paragraph [0048]; metallic connection portion provided with a threading).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nielsen and Palm teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further Palm teaches that the thermal cycle includes air-cooling to a room temperature (see paragraph [0027] and [0075]).
Claims 11, 14-16, and 18-20
Claims 11, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0277651 to Calnan et al. (hereinafter “Calnan”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0325343 to Ownby et al. (hereinafter “Ownby”).
Regarding claim 11, Calnan discloses a method for manufacturing a bit (matrix drill bit; see paragraph [0059]), the method comprising: inserting an integral metallic connection (178) into a bit mold (000), the integral metallic connection including a matrix portion (172) integrally formed with connection portion (see paragraph [0087]); flowing matrix material (matrix material; see paragraph [0006]) and an infiltrant (binder; paragraph [0006]) into the bit mold around the integral metallic connection (see paragraph [0068]), the matrix material including a matrix material powder (see paragraph [0046]); heating the integral metallic connection, the matrix material, and the infiltrant to an infiltration temperature to form an infiltrated matrix body (see paragraph [0059]) with the integral metallic connection embedded in the infiltrated matrix body (forming matrix bit head); cooling the infiltrated matrix body and the integral metallic connection (matrix bit head is heated and cooled; see paragraph [0059]); de-molding the infiltrated matrix body and the integral metallic connection from the bit mold (see paragraph [0061]; molded bit head removed from associated mold); and heating the infiltrated matrix body and the integral metallic connection to a brazing pre-heat temperature (conventional in the art that brazing may be used to install cutting elements to bit head after removal from a mold; see paragraph [0041]).
Calnan does not explicitly disclose that the cooling is to a room temperature. However, it is conventional in the art of molding drill bits to cool molded materials to room temperature.
For example, Ownby discloses a method for manufacturing a bit (100), the method comprising: inserting an integral metallic connection (114) into a bit mold (300), the integral metallic connection including a matrix portion (see paragraph [0025]) integrally formed with a connection portion (threaded portion; see [0018]); flowing matrix material (318; see paragraph [0025]) and an infiltrant (see paragraph [0026] and [0027]; binder materials and reinforcement materials) into the bit mold around the integral metallic connection, the matrix material including a matrix material powder (see paragraph [0002]; material may be powder); heating (see paragraph [0028]; mold heated until binder infiltrates) the integral metallic connection, the matrix material, and the infiltrant to an infiltration temperature to form an infiltrated matrix body (see paragraph [0027]; infiltration process) with the integral metallic connection embedded in the infiltrated matrix body; cooling the infiltrated matrix body and the integral metallic connection to a room temperature (cooling of mold by cooler air outside furnace; see paragraph [0028] and ambient temperature at paragraph [0031]). Ownby teaches that its controlled cooling process may reduce rejection rate of formed drill components arising from defects due to manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Calnan to include cooling a molded bit body to room temperature, as taught by Ownby. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would predictably produce a molded bit which is less likely to have manufacturing defects.
Thus, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Ownby teaches air-cooling the integral metallic connection after heating the integral metallic connection to the brazing pre-heat temperature (see paragraph [0028]; after heating with furnace, molded material is cooled by air outside the furnace). Following any brazing (see paragraph [0019]), one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the formed bit would be cooled again by air.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Ownby teaches directionally quenching (see paragraph [0032]; controlled cooling results in directional solidification) the integral metallic connection after heating the integral metallic connection to the infiltration temperature.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Calnan teaches that the brazing pre-heat temperature is associated with a microstructural refinement of the integral metallic connection to improve mechanical properties (see paragraph [0041]; brazing suitable to bond cutting elements 62 to cutting bit fairly understood to read on improving mechanical properties of device intended for cutting).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 16, and further Calnan teaches brazing a plurality of cutting elements (62) to the bit (see paragraph [0062). Calnan does not teach thermally protecting the integral metallic connection from brazing heat, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the bit is not protected from the brazing heat, permitting the brazing to occur.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Ownby teaches heating the infiltrated matrix body and metallic connection to a precipitate hardening temperature between the infiltration temperature and the pre-heat temperature (material may be heated and cooled to form bit; see paragraph [0059] and paragraph [0076]); and cooling the infiltrated matrix body and the integral metallic connection to the pre-heat temperature or to the room temperature (ambient temperature; see paragraph [0031]). Because the material has been heated to an infiltration temperature, and is brazed (paragraph [0019] of Ownby and paragraph [0041] of Calnan) and is cooled to ambient, a precipitate hardening temperature which lies between the infiltration temperature and the brazing temperature must be achieved at some point.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further Ownby teaches cooling the bit to the room temperature includes air cooling the bit to the room temperature (cooling of mold by cooler air outside furnace; see paragraph [0028] and ambient temperature at paragraph [0031]).
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Calnan and Ownby as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0053349 to Nielsen (hereinafter “Nielsen”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 11, however the combination does not explicitly disclose that the infiltration temperature meets or exceeds a minimum solutionizing temperature.
However, it is known in the art of molding bits to solutionize the molded material.
For example, Nielsen teaches a method for manufacturing a bit (10) from a composite including providing the bit (10) comprising a body (12; see also paragraph [0006], matrix phase) and a metallic connection (22, 24; see paragraph [0048]). Nielsen teaches that the body may be formed by molding (see paragraphs [0043] and [0051]) a composite material of alloy and hard particles (see paragraph [0048]). An infiltrant may be filled into the mold (see paragraph [0004]). Nielsen teaches heating the metallic connection, matrix material, and infiltrant to an infiltration temperature to form an infiltrated matrix body (see paragraph [0017]) with the metallic connection embedded therein. Nielsen further teaches that the components may be heated to a brazing temperature (see paragraph [0052]; body may be bonded by brazing). Nielsen teaches that its alloy may form a homogenous mixture using the mold (see paragraph [0043]). Nielsen teaches that its alloy is heated to cause infiltration (see paragraph [0044] and [0045]), and produce the homogenous dispersion in the alloy. The heating of Nielsen which results in the infiltrated product is understood to exceed the temperature needed for producing the homogenous or solutionized product. Nielsen teaches that product increases yield strength and has a high degree of uniformity (see paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Calnan and Ownby to include using known materials heated to conventional temperatures to produce homogenous bits, as taught by Nielsen. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would predictably result in a bit having improved strength and desirably a high degree of uniformity.
Thus, the combination of Calnan, Ownby, and Nielsen teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Calnan, Ownby, and Nielsen as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication United States Patent Application Publication 2001/0002557 to Kembaiyan et al. (hereinafter “Kembaiyan”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Calnan, Ownby, and Nielsen teaches the limitations of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose that the infiltration temperature is between 1,900 and 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the method of the combination could be performed on conventional materials for making a bit.
Kembaiyan teaches a mixture suitable for forming a drill bit from a matrix material and binder (see paragraph [0008]). The material has an infiltration temperature and a melting temperature (paragraph [0008]). Kembaiyan teaches that for at least one common commercially used material, the infiltration temperature is between 1,900˚ F and 2,400˚ F (see paragraph [0008]; infiltration temperature of 2150˚ F lies within the cited range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Calnan, Ownby, and Nielsen to use a conventional and commercially common material for forming a bit, such as the material disclosed by Kembaiyan. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably produce a bit in a conventional manner, and of a material that is commercially used for the purpose. It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to use the technique of Calnan, Ownby, and Nielsen to form a treated bit from a commercially conventional material, while applying treatment temperatures for the commercially known material which would be expected to produce a solutionized, infiltrated bit within a mold.
Thus, the combination Calnan, Ownby, Nielsen, and Kembaiyan teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Calnan and Ownby as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0278604 to Glass et al. teaches a method for forming a bit using a mold assembly which may be heated using an oven (see paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Calnan and Ownby teaches the limitations of claim 12, however the combination does not explicitly disclose what the brazing temperature is, and thus cannot disclose that the brazing pre-heat temperature is between 900 degrees and 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit.
It is known in the art of forming molded bits to braze the bit. For example, Glass teaches such brazing. Glass teaches heating a formed bit for brazing (see paragraph [0098]) using a conventional braze material such as a silver copy brazing alloy which is commercially available. The commercial alloy may have a melting temperature of between 1100 and 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, which overlaps with the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Calnan and Ownby to include a conventional and commercially available braze material, such as the brazing material taught by Glass. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably involve brazing the molded bit at a temperature between 900 and 1200 degrees Fahrenheit to join components. Because the braze material is commercially available, it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to perform brazing at conventional temperatures for the known material, without requiring any inventive step to perform the brazing.
Thus, the combination of Calnan, Ownby, and Glass teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0369568 to Cook teaches a method for forming a bit member which may be formed from a matrix material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights