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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 23 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 23 recites “the distance” that lacks antecedent basis.
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) 1-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dennis (20040118609).
Dennis discloses a roller cone, comprising:
Re claim 1:
a body (i.e., figs. 2-3) concentrically formed around a cone axis, the body extending in an axial direction of the cone axis from an outer region to a blunted nose section, blunted nose section is positioned radially outward from a point along the cone axis such that the blunted nose section has a blunted cross-sectional shape that is flat or concave relative (i.e., figs. 2-3, lower cone) to the body;
a plurality of inserts 430 disposed on the body of the roller cone; and
a plurality of cutting elements 410 disposed on the blunted nose section, wherein a first cutting element of the plurality of cutting elements has a plurality of cutting edges.
Re claim 2, the plurality of inserts 430 on the body are crushing inserts (i.e., pgh. 53, it is conical and achieves rapid cutting in tractable formations).
Re claim 3, at least one cutting element of the plurality of cutting elements 410 has a concave upper surface (i.e., figs. 2-4).
Re claim 4, a second cutting element of the plurality of cutting elements 410 has three cutting edges (i.e., fig. 4).
Re claim 6, the plurality of cutting elements 410 includes a second cutting element having at least one cutting edge, wherein the at least one cutting edge is a continuous cutting edge (i.e., fig. 4).
Re claim 8:
a body concentrically formed around a cone axis, the body extending in an axial direction of the cone axis from an outer region to a blunted nose section, wherein the blunted nose section is positioned radially outward from a point along the cone axis at a such that the blunted nose section has a blunted cross-sectional shape that is flat or concave relative to the body:
a plurality of inserts disposed on the body of the roller cone; and
a plurality of cutting elements disposed on the blunted nose section, wherein the plurality of cutting elements comprises at least one cutting element having a continuous cutting edge and a concave upper surface and at least a second cutting element with having at least one cutting edge. Claim 8 is pertinent to claims 1 and 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis.
Dennis teaches at least two cutting elements with a plurality of cutting edges, but is silent on at least a third cutting element disposed on the nose section, wherein the at least a third cutting element has a plurality of cutting edges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to try the cutting elements of Dennis with a third cutting element for optimal performance of the roller cone (more cutting elements for faster earth penetrating), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 5 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis in view of Portwood et al. (6059054 - Portwood).
Re claim 5, Dennis teaches a second cutting element three cutting edges but is silent on four or more cutting edges. Portwood teaches cutting element 150 with four or more cutting edges (i.e., figs.5A-5D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the second cutting element of Dennis with four or more cutting edges as taught by Portwood to improve the overall life of both the cutter element and the drill bit (i.e., Portwood, col. 3:64:65).
Re claim 22, Dennis is silent on each cutting edge of the plurality of cutting edges has a size between adjacent surfaces on either side of the cutting edge of no more than 0.100 inches (2.54 millimeters). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the each cutting edge of Dennis with a size between adjacent surfaces on either side of the cutting edge of no more than 0.100 inches (2.54 millimeters), for a predictable performance of the drill bit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (20110162893) in view of Portwood et al. (6059054 – Portwood).
Re claim 10:
a bit body 410 (i.e., fig. 4A) having a rotational axis L;
a roller cone 440, 940 supported by the bit body, the roller cone including:
a blunted nose section (i.e., fig. 4A, 9B), the blunted nose section that is flat or concave relative to a body of the roller cone being positioned radially outward from the rotational axis, and wherein the blunted nose section further comprises a plurality of cutting elements 445 (i.e., pgh. 48) arranged thereon; and
a first fixed blade 430 fixed relative to the bit body with fixed blade cutting elements 453 affixed thereto radially overlapping at least the blunted nose section (i.e., fig. 4A, 9B).
Zhang is silent on at least one cutting element of the plurality of cutting elements has a plurality of cutting edges. Portwood teaches cutting element 150 with four or more cutting edges (i.e., figs.5A-5D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the cutting elements of Zhang with four or more cutting edges as taught by Portwood to improve the overall life of both the cutter element and the drill bit (i.e., Portwood, col. 3:64:65).
Zhang further discloses,
Re claim 11, at least a second roller cone (i.e., figs. 4A, 9B show two cones), the at least second roller cone further being supported by the bit body, the at least second roller cone including: a second cone nose section, the second cone nose section being positioned radially outward from the rotational axis, and wherein the second cone nose section further comprises at least one second cone cutting element 445 (i.e., pgh. 48, “cutting elements”), the at least one second cone cutting element having at least one cutting edge (i.e., figs. 4A, 9B).
Re claim 12, the roller cone further comprises a plurality of inserts 445 (i.e., pgh. 49, “inserts”) on the roller cone body.
Re claim 13, the plurality of inserts are crushing inserts (i.e., pgh. 48, “cutting elements”).
Re claim 14, the second roller cone (i.e., figs. 4A, 9B show two roller cone) comprises a second roller cone body and a plurality of second cone inserts 445 (i.e., pgh. 49, “inserts”) on the second roller cone body.
Re claim 15, the plurality of second cone inserts are crushing inserts (i.e., pgh. 48, “cutting elements”).
Re claim 20, at least one second cone cutting element has a continuous cutting edge 531 (i.e., fig. 5).
Re claim 21, the second nose cone section further comprises at least two second cutting elements 445 (i.e., fig. 4A).
Re claim 23 (as best understood, 112 issue) the distance (distance between top of cone and blunted nose section) top to is at least 10% of a diameter of the bit body (i.e., figs. 4A, 9B).
Portwood further teaches,
Re claim 16, cutting element having a plurality of cutting edges (i.e., figs. 5A-5D).
Re claim 17, the plurality of cutting elements has three cutting edges (i.e., figs. 5A-5D)
Re claim 18, the plurality of cutting elements has four or more cutting edges (i.e., figs. 5A-5D).
Re claim 19, the plurality of cutting elements having a plurality of cutting edges, wherein the at least one cutting edge is a continuous cutting edge (i.e., figs. 5A-5D).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights