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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that because Welch discloses multiple groups of cutters, some of which do not extend from the same cutter-supporting surface, the recitations of pgph. 93 of Welch fail to make limitations of claim 1 obvious when combined with Vem is not persuasive. While Examiner agrees that Welch discloses multiple groups of cutters which do not extend from the same supporting surface, Vempati (and Shen) only discloses a single row of cutters which all extend from the same surface. Therefore, in the combination, Welch’s recitation of providing more total diamond content and greater cutter concentration in the shoulder and gage regions will result in a tighter spacing in these regions relative to the cone region when applied to Vempati (and Shen) in order to allow efficient ROP despite failure of one or more cutters as taught by Welch in pgph. 93. Furthermore, Vempati appears to already disclose greater spacing in the cone region 310 than other regions in fig. 3.
Applicant’s argument that the combination with Welch relies on visual measurements of fig. 14 is not persuasive since Welch is being used solely to teach the greater cutter concentration and more diamond content in the shoulder and gage sections than the cone section, which can be used without relying on fig. 14 at all. Welch discloses that more wear occurs at the shoulder and gage sections, and proposes providing extra cutters in these regions to provide an optimized bit which will provide efficient ROP despite failure of one or several cutters. This teaching in and of itself is obviously applicable to Vempati and Shen, and the result will be a closer spacing between each of the cutting elements in the shoulder and gage regions of Vempati and Shen relative to the cone section since Vempati and Shen only discloses a single row of cutters.
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) 1, 2, 14-18, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Shen (US 20080296070 A1) in light of Welch (US 20100089661 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Shen discloses a fixed cutter drill bit for drilling an earthen formation, the drill bit comprising: a bit body having a central axis and a bit face, wherein the bit body is configured to rotate about the central axis in a cutting direction of rotation, wherein the bit face includes a concave cone region extending radially from the central axis, a convex shoulder region extending radially from the cone region, a nose at the intersection of the cone region and the shoulder region, and a gage region extending radially from the shoulder region to a full gage diameter of the drill bit; a cutting structure disposed on the bit face, wherein the cutting structure includes a primary blade extending radially from proximal the bit axis through the cone region and the shoulder region to the gage region, wherein the blade has a leading side relative to the cutting direction of rotation, a trailing side relative to the cutting direction of rotation, and a cutter-supporting surface extending from the leading side to the trailing side (clearly shown in figs. 5, 7); and a plurality of cutter elements (310, 371, 350) mounted to the cutter-supporting surface of the primary blade in the cone region, the shoulder region, and the gage region (shown in fig. 7A), high aspect ratio cutters in the cone region (fig. 7A shows this, pgph. 51) wherein the cutter elements are arranged in a row proximal the leading side of the primary blade and extending radially from the cone region proximal the bit axis to a gage area extending from the primary blade (shown in figs. 5, 7A); wherein each cutter element has an exposure H measured perpendicularly from the cutter-supporting surface of the primary blade to a cutting tip of the cutter element distal the primary blade (shown in fig. 7A); wherein the exposure H of one or more of the cutter elements in the cone region (310) is greater than the exposure H of one or more cutter elements in the shoulder region and the gage region (371) and a gage pad (pgph. 72), and each cutting element extends from a cutter supporting surface of the primary blade to a cutting tip of the primary blade distal the cutter supporting surface (shown in fig. 5), wherein each pair of radially adjacent cutter elements is spaced apart a minimum distance D measured parallel to the cutter-supporting surface of the primary blade between the pair of radially adjacent cutter elements (shown in figs. 5, 7a)
However, Shen fails to disclose the spacing differences claimed.
Nevertheless, Welch discloses providing a greater concentration of diamond content in the gage and shoulder regions compared to the cone region (pgph. 93, Welch also shows a similar structure in fig. 12). In the combination with Shen, since Shen only disclose a single row of cutters, applying the higher diamond concentration in the shoulder and gage regions to Shen will result in a configuration wherein the minimum distance D between each pair of radially adjacent high-aspect ratio cutter elements in the cone region is greater than the minimum distance D between each pair of radially adjacent cutter elements in the shoulder region and the gage region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have increased the cutter concentration in the gage and shoulder regions of Shen as taught by Welch (pgph. 93), and therefore to have made the spacing of the cutters in the cone region greater than the spacing in other regions in order to allow the bit to continue to provide efficient ROP in the event of the failure of one or several cutting elements as taught by Welch (pgph. 93).
With respect to claim 2, Shen further discloses wherein each high-aspect ratio cutter element has a central axis, a leading end relative to the cutting direction of rotation, a trailing end relative to the cutting direction of rotation and opposite the leading end, a cutting face at the leading end, a longitudinal axis oriented perpendicular to the central axis, a length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis and a width measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, wherein the central axis intersects the leading end and the trailing end; wherein each high-aspect ratio cutter element has an aspect ratio equal to the ratio of the length of the high-aspect ratio cutter element to the width of the high- aspect ratio cutter element, wherein the aspect ratio of each high-aspect ratio cutter element is greater than 1.0 and less than or equal to 2.0 (pgph. 47).
With respect to claim 14, Shen further discloses wherein the plurality of cutter elements comprise the plurality of high-aspect ratio cutter elements arranged in the row extending radially from proximal the central axis (the rightmost instance of 310 in fig. 7A is proximal the axis 310, despite the presence of 350 which is more proximal the axis) of the drill bit through the cone region and into the shoulder region (fig. 7A shows this); and a low-aspect ratio cutter element (371) arranged in the row and extending radially from the plurality of high-aspect ratio cutter elements in the shoulder region through the shoulder region and the gage region (shown in fig. 7A).
However, Shen fails to disclose multiple elements 371 in the gage region.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used multiple low-aspect ratio cutters in the gage region extending to the gage pad of Shen since this is merely duplication of parts which would have resulted in a bit which functioned in the same way with predictable and obvious results and a reasonable expectation for success.
With respect to claim 15, Shen further discloses wherein the plurality of cutter elements comprise the plurality of high-aspect ratio cutter elements arranged in the row extending radially from proximal the central axis of the drill bit through the cone region and the shoulder region to the gage region a plurality of low-aspect ratio cutter elements arranged in the row and extending radially through the gage region to the gage pad (shown in fig. 7A, discussed supra with respect to the multiple low-aspect cutters).
With respect to claim 16, Shen further discloses wherein each high-aspect ratio cutter element has a central axis, a leading end relative to the cutting direction of rotation, a trailing end relative to the cutting direction of rotation and opposite the leading end, a cutting face at the leading end, a longitudinal axis oriented perpendicular to the central axis, wherein the central axis intersects the leading end and the trailing end; wherein one or more of the high-aspect ratio cutter element is oriented at a non- zero tilt angle a measured in a front view of the primary blade from the longitudinal axis of the high-aspect ratio cutter element to a reference axis A passing through a cutting tip of the high-aspect ratio cutter element and oriented perpendicular to a cutting profile of the plurality of cutter elements mounted to the primary blade (figs. 7B, 7C show this).
The limitations of claims 17, 18, and 26 are substantially similar to those of claims 1, 2, 14, 15, and 16, rejected supra.
With respect to claim 23, Shen further discloses wherein the exposure H of one or more high-aspect ratio cutter elements is greater than the exposure H of each low-aspect ratio cutter element (fig. 7A shows this).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vempati (US 20110073369 A1), hereinafter Vem, in light of Fuller (US 5649604 A) and Welch.
With respect to claim 1, Vem discloses a fixed cutter drill bit for drilling an earthen formation, the drill bit comprising: a bit body having a central axis and a bit face, wherein the bit body is configured to rotate about the central axis in a cutting direction of rotation, wherein the bit face includes a concave cone region extending radially from the central axis, a convex shoulder region extending radially from the cone region, a nose at the intersection of the cone region and the shoulder region, and a gage region extending radially from the shoulder region to a full gage diameter of the drill bit; a cutting structure disposed on the bit face, wherein the cutting structure includes a primary blade extending radially from proximal the bit axis through the cone region and the shoulder region to the gage region, wherein the blade has a leading side relative to the cutting direction of rotation, a trailing side relative to the cutting direction of rotation, and a cutter-supporting surface extending from the leading side to the trailing side (clearly shown in figs. 1-3); and a plurality of cutter elements (135) mounted to the cutter-supporting surface of the primary blade in the cone region, the shoulder region, and the gage region (shown in fig. 3), wherein the cutter elements are arranged in a row proximal the leading side of the primary blade and extending radially from the cone region proximal the bit axis to a gage area extending from the primary blade (shown in figs. 1-3); wherein each cutter element has an exposure H measured perpendicularly from the cutter-supporting surface of the primary blade to a cutting tip of the cutter element distal the primary blade (pgph. 34); wherein the exposure H of one or more of the cutter elements in the cone region is greater than the exposure H of one or more cutter elements in the shoulder region and the gage region (pgphs. 34, 36), and each cutting element extends from a cutter supporting surface of the primary blade to a cutting tip of the primary blade distal the cutter supporting surface (shown in figs. 2, 3), wherein each pair of radially adjacent cutter elements is spaced apart a minimum distance D measured parallel to the cutter-supporting surface of the primary blade between the pair of radially adjacent cutter elements (shown in figs. 2, 3).
However, while Vem discloses a gage region and mentions a gage pad in pgph. 6, he fails to specifically disclose the use of a gage pad and fails to disclose the high-aspect cutters in the cone region.
Nevertheless, Fuller discloses using high-aspect ratio cutters in the cone region (figs. 1, 8, col. 8 ll. 6-10), Fuller also discloses a gage pad (col. 8 ll. 65-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used partial-circular cutters in the cone region of Vem and also to have included a gage pad in Vem as taught by Fuller 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 and in order to form an upstanding core which will enhance bit stability as taught by Fuller (col. 2 ll. 42-47, col. 4 ll. 29-32, col. 8 ll. 6-10). The partial circular cutters are high-aspect ratio since the height will be greater than the width.
However, Vem also fails to disclose the spacing differences claimed.
Nevertheless, Welch discloses providing a greater concentration of diamond content in the gage and shoulder regions compared to the cone region (pgph. 93). In the combination with Vem, since Vem only disclose a single row of cutters, applying the higher diamond concentration in the shoulder and gage regions to Vem will result in a configuration wherein the minimum distance D between each pair of radially adjacent high-aspect ratio cutter elements in the cone region is greater than the minimum distance D between each pair of radially adjacent cutter elements in the shoulder region and the gage region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have increased the cutter concentration in the gage and shoulder regions of Vem as taught by Welch (pgph. 93), and therefore to have made the spacing of the cutters in the cone region greater than the spacing in other regions in order to allow the bit to continue to provide efficient ROP in the event of the failure of one or several cutting elements as taught by Welch (pgph. 93). Furthermore, Vem appears to already show this in fig. 3 and Welch also shows a similar structure in fig. 12.
With respect to claim 2, Fuller further discloses wherein each high-aspect ratio cutter element has a central axis, a leading end relative to the cutting direction of rotation, a trailing end relative to the cutting direction of rotation and opposite the leading end, a cutting face at the leading end, a longitudinal axis oriented perpendicular to the central axis, a length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis and a width measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, wherein the central axis intersects the leading end and the trailing end; wherein each high-aspect ratio cutter element has an aspect ratio equal to the ratio of the length of the high-aspect ratio cutter element to the width of the high- aspect ratio cutter element, wherein the aspect ratio of each high-aspect ratio cutter element is greater than 1.0 and less than or equal to 2.0 (a partial circle that is greater than a half circle as shown in Fuller in fig. 8 will have an aspect ratio between 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 10, Fuller further discloses wherein each cutter element in the cone region is a high-aspect ratio cutter element (shown in fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Vem and Fuller further disclose wherein the plurality of cutter elements comprises a plurality of low-aspect ratio cutter elements in the shoulder region or the gage region (col. 8 ll. 44-63, Fuller, pgph. 29 Vem).
With respect to claim 16, Fuller further discloses wherein each high-aspect ratio cutter element has a central axis, a leading end relative to the cutting direction of rotation, a trailing end relative to the cutting direction of rotation and opposite the leading end, a cutting face at the leading end, a longitudinal axis oriented perpendicular to the central axis, wherein the central axis intersects the leading end and the trailing end; wherein one or more of the high-aspect ratio cutter element is oriented at a non- zero tilt angle a measured in a front view of the primary blade from the longitudinal axis of the high-aspect ratio cutter element to a reference axis A passing through a cutting tip of the high-aspect ratio cutter element and oriented perpendicular to a cutting profile of the plurality of cutter elements mounted to the primary blade (shown in fig. 8, the cutters are tilted downwardly relative to perpendicular the bit face since the flats would be angled inwardly if they were not tilted as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 19-21 are allowed
Claims 24 and 25 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.
Conclusion
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 10/14/2026
