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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,914. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1-22 in the instant application slightly broader than the patent. However, they are not patenably distinct from each other because claims 1-22 of the instant application are obviously encompassed by the boundaries of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,914.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. 2015/0259988A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. disclose a cutting element (5100, see figs. 51-54 and refer to para 0112) comprising:
a substrate (5120) having a non-planar upper surface (5128; “upper surface 5128” comprises a plurality of protrusions 5125) with a peripheral edge (see fig. 52 below), the upper surface (5128) comprises:
at least one depression (“depressed regions 5126”; see figs. 53-54 and refer to para 0113) formed at least proximate the peripheral edge (see fig. 52 below) and
a compressive stress hoop (the region around the upper surface of the substrate that is not part of the plurality of protrusions and is adjacent the peripheral edge. See fig. 52 below for more detail) extending around the upper surface (5128) adjacent the peripheral edge (as shown in fig. 52 below), extending into the at least one depression (as shown in fig. 52 below), and configured to (the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02) reduce tensile stress in an ultrahard layer (5110; since the ultrahard layer 5110 mates with the substrate upper surface 5120 during assembly, the annular surface or hoop formed as a result of the change in geometry of the upper surface will reduce tensile stress in the ultrahard layer 5110); and
the ultrahard layer (5110) on the substrate (5120) and having a non-planar top surface (5105; fig. 51 and para 0112), wherein an interface (5130, fig. 51) is formed between the ultrahard layer (5110) and the substrate (5120; refer to para 0112).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression (5126) extends to the peripheral edge (as shown in fig. 52 above).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. disclose two depressions (see figs. 51-53), each of the two depressions having a center point 180 degrees from a center point of the other depression (see figs. 52-53).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. disclose wherein a lowest point of the peripheral edge is within the depression (5126; see fig. 52 above).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression has a depth (depth from the highest point of the crest to the lowest point of the depression) such that the ultrahard layer (5110) has a depth at the deepest point (as shown by t3 in fig. 51) of the depression that is between 15% and 90% of a thickness of the ultrahard layer at an axis (z-axis) of the cutting element (5100, see fig. 51 and refer to para 0112).
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression has a length of between 9% and 96% of a radius of the substrate (as shown in fig. 52).
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression extends over an arc length of between 12 degrees and 140 degrees of a circumference of the substrate (5120; see figs. 52-54).
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al. disclose wherein the compressive stress hoop comprises a planar surface perpendicular to an axis (the x-axis and/or y-axis) of the substrate (5120: the hoop defines a plane that is flat, 2-dimentional and straight in two directions).
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. disclose wherein the compressive stress hoop comprises a curved or angled surface (as shown in fig. 54: it is at an angle towards the peripheral edge) and forms an interface with a curved or angled surface of the ultrahard layer (para 0112: since the interface surface of the ultrahard layer and the substrate are complementary, the curves angled surface of the compressive stress hoop forms an interface with a curved or angled surface of the ultrahard layer).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. disclose wherein the compressive stress hoop becomes wider as it extends into the one or more depressions (as shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. disclose wherein the crest (5124; see fig. 52 above showing the crest at the highest point of the substrate) extends along a central axis (Z-axis) of the substrate (5120).
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al. disclose wherein a top surface of the ultrahard layer comprises a cutting crest (5112; see fig. 51 and refer to para 0112).
Regarding claim 15, Chen et al. disclose wherein the cutting crest (5112) is aligned with the crest (5124; see fig. 51).
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al. disclose wherein a cross section of the substrate (5120), extending along a line (x-axis) extending between a center point of each of the two depressions (as shown in fig. 52) comprises:
two low regions (the lowest point of each depressed region);
a high region (crest 5124 along the z-axis) between the two low regions (as shown in fig. 52); and
two curved portions (where 5124 is pointing in fig. 52. Note that this is not the crest as illustrated in fig. 52 above), each curved portion connecting a low region to a high region (as shown in fig. 52).
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al. disclose a cutting tool (see fig. 1 and 66) including a cutting element (see fig. 1 and 66) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Chen et al. disclose a cutting element (5100, see figs. 51-54 and refer to para 0112) comprising:
a substrate (5120) having a non-planar upper surface (5128; “upper surface 5128” comprises a plurality of protrusions 5125) having a peripheral edge (see fig. 52 above), the non-planar upper surface (5128) comprises at least one depression (“depressed regions 5126”; see figs. 53-54 and refer to para 0113) that extends to the peripheral edge (see fig. 52 above); and
an ultrahard layer (5110) on the substrate (5120, see fig. 51), the ultrahard layer (5110) comprising:
a non-planar top surface (5105; fig. 51 and para 0112) having a cutting edge (the cutting edge portion of 5110 defined around t3. For the purpose of simplicity, the cutting edge will be referred to “t3”), the cutting edge (t3) being over the at least one depression (as shown in fig. 51); and
a bottom surface (bottom surface of 5110), such that the bottom surface of the ultrahard layer (5110) and the upper surface (5128) of the substrate (5120) form an interface (5130, fig. 51);
wherein the at least one depression has a depth (as shown in fig. 52) and the ultrahard layer (5110) has a thickness at the cutting edge (refer to para 0112) such that the peripheral edge of the non-planar upper surface of the substrate is at a minimum height at the at least one depression (as shown in figs. 51-54).
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression has a depth (depth from the highest point of the crest to the lowest point of the depression) such that the ultrahard layer (5110) has a depth at the deepest point of the depression (as shown by t3 in fig. 51) that is between 5% and 100% of a thickness of the ultrahard layer at an axis (z-axis) of the cutting element (5100, see fig. 51 and refer to para 0112).
Regarding claim 20, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression has a length of between greater than 0% and less than 100% of a radius of the substrate (as shown in fig. 52).
Regarding claim 21, Chen et al. disclose wherein the depression extends over an arc length of between 12 degrees and 140 degrees of a circumference of the substrate (5120; see figs. 52-54).
Regarding claim 22, Chen et al. disclose a cutting tool (see fig. 1 and 66) including a cutting element (see fig. 1 and 66) according to claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al. (U.S. 2015/0259988A1) alone.
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Chen et al. further teach that cutting elements having the at least one modified regions formed in the top surface may have improved cutting efficiency, depth of cut control, and frontal impact resistance (para 0080).
However, Chen et al. is silent to wherein the annular width of the compressive stress hoop and a corresponding interface with the ultrahard layer is narrowest 90 degrees from a center point of the one or more depressions on the peripheral edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hoop of Chen et al. such that the annular width of the compressive stress hoop and a corresponding interface with the ultrahard layer is narrowest 90 degrees from a center point of the one or more depressions on the peripheral edge, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve cutting efficiency, depth of cut control, and frontal impact resistance (para 0080).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Chen et al. is silent to wherein the narrowest annular width of the compressive stress hoop is between 2% and 50% of a radius of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hoop of Chen et al. such that the narrowest annular width of the compressive stress hoop is between 2% and 50% of a radius of the substrate, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve cutting efficiency, depth of cut control, and frontal impact resistance (para 0080).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 1-8 and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyre et al. (U.S. 2011/0036642A1), in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2015/0259988A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eyre et al. disclose a cutting element (10, figs. 2 and 4) comprising:
a substrate (12) having a non-planar upper surface (26, 28, fig. 4) with a peripheral edge (24) and, the upper surface (26, 28) comprising:
at least one depression (46) formed at least proximate the peripheral edge (24); and
a compressive stress hoop (34) extending around the upper surface (26, 28) adjacent the peripheral edge (24), extending into the at least one depression (46), and configured to (the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02) reduce tensile stress in an ultrahard layer (14; since the ultrahard layer 14 mates with the substrate upper surface as seen in fig. 2, the annular surface or hoop 34 will reduce tensile stress in the ultrahard layer 14); and
wherein an interface (20) is formed between the ultrahard layer (14) and the substrate (12, see fig. 2).
However, Eyre et al. fail to teach the ultrahard layer having a non-planar top surface.
Chen et al. teach a cutting element (200, fig. 35 and para 0092) comprising:
a substrate (220) having a non-planar upper surface (228; see fig. 35 and refer to para 0092 “a non-planar substrate upper surface”) with a peripheral edge (the peripheral edge of 222 along 227) and an ultrahard layer (210) on the substrate (220; para 0094), wherein the ultrahard layer comprises a non-planar top surface (205, see fig. 35 and refer to para 0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrahard layer of Eyre et al. to have a non-planar top surface, as taught by Chen et al. for increasing the efficiency of cutting the rock formation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein the depression (46) extends to the peripheral edge (24, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose three depressions.
However, the embodiment of fig. 4 does not show two depressions, each of the two depressions having a center point 180 degrees from a center point of the other depression.
Eyre et al., in para 0049, discloses that in other embodiments, more or less than three depressions may be provided and they may be symmetrically around the band 34 (refer to para 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of depressions of Eyre et al. to have two depressions, each of the two depressions having a center point 180 degrees from a center point of the other depression, as discussed in paragraph 0049, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein a lowest point of the peripheral edge (24) is within the depression (46, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, the combination Eyre et al. and Chen et al. is silent to wherein the depression has a depth such that the ultrahard layer has a depth at the deepest point of the depression that is between 15% and 90% of a thickness of the ultrahard layer at an axis of the cutting element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. such that the depression has a depth such that the ultrahard layer has a depth at the deepest point of the depression that is between 15% and 90% of a thickness of the ultrahard layer at an axis of the cutting element, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, the combination Eyre et al. and Chen et al. is silent to wherein the depression has a length of between 9% and 96% of a radius of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. such that the depression has a length of between 9% and 96% of a radius of the substrate, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, the combination Eyre et al. and Chen et al. is silent to the depression extends over an arc length of between 12 degrees and 140 degrees of a circumference of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. such that the depression extends over an arc length of between 12 degrees and 140 degrees of a circumference of the substrate, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein the compressive stress hoop (34) comprises a planar surface perpendicular to an axis (36) of the substrate (12, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, the combination Eyre et al. and Chen et al. is silent to wherein the annular width of the compressive stress hoop and a corresponding interface with the ultrahard layer is narrowest 90 degrees from a center point of the one or more depressions on the peripheral edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. such that the annular width of the compressive stress hoop and a corresponding interface with the ultrahard layer is narrowest 90 degrees from a center point of the one or more depressions on the peripheral edge, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein the compressive stress hoop (34) becomes wider (see fig. 4 below) as it extends into the one or more depressions (46).
PNG
media_image3.png
630
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein the narrowest annular width of the compressive stress hoop (see fig. 4 above) is between 2% and 50% of a radius of the substrate (see fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein the upper surface comprises a crest (48 or the highest point of the projection 30) extending along a central axis (36) of the substrate (12).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. further disclose wherein a top surface of the ultrahard layer comprises a cutting crest (as taught by Chen, cutting crest 212; see fig. 35 and refer to para 0093).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 14 above; Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. further disclose wherein the cutting crest (as taught by Chen, cutting crest 212; see fig. 35 and refer to para 0093) is aligned with the crest (Eyre et al., fig. 4: crest 48; refer to para 0050: 48 may be taller than projections 30).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein a cross section of the substrate, extending along a line extending between a center point of each of the two depressions comprises:
two low regions (base of the two depressions);
a high region (peak of projections 30) between the two low regions (see fig. 4 below); and
two curved portions (V-groove 40), each curved portion (each wall of the V-groove 40) connecting a low region (bottom of the groove 40) to a high region (see fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
666
791
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Eyre et al. further disclose a cutting tool (16, fig. 3) including a cutting element (10) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Eyre et al. disclose a cutting element (10, figs. 2 and 4) comprising:
a substrate (12) having a non-planar upper surface (26, 28, fig. 4) having a peripheral edge (24), the non- planar upper surface comprising at least one depression (46) that extends to the peripheral edge (24); and
an ultrahard layer (14, para 0037) on the substrate (12, see fig. 2), the ultrahard layer comprising:
a cutting edge (19), the cutting edge (19) being over the at least one depression (when layer 14 is assembled over substrate 12, the cutting edge 19 will be over the at least one depression 46); and
a bottom surface (bottom surface of 14), such that the bottom surface of the ultrahard layer (14) and the upper surface of the substrate (12) form an interface (20, see fig. 2),
wherein the at least one depression (46) has a depth and the ultrahard layer has a thickness at the cutting edge such that the peripheral edge (24) of the non-planar upper surface of the substrate (12) is at a minimum height at the at least one depression (see fig. 4).
However, Eyre et al. fail to teach the ultrahard layer having a non-planar top surface.
Chen et al. teach a cutting element (200, fig. 35 and para 0092) comprising:
a substrate (220) having a non-planar upper surface (228; see fig. 35 and refer to para 0092 “a non-planar substrate upper surface”) with a peripheral edge (the peripheral edge of 222 along 227) and an ultrahard layer (210) on the substrate (220; para 0094), wherein the ultrahard layer comprises a non-planar top surface (205, see fig. 35 and refer to para 0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrahard layer of Eyre et al. to have a non-planar top surface, as taught by Chen et al. for increasing the efficiency of cutting the rock formation.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; however, the combination Eyre et al. and Chen et al. is silent to wherein the depression has a depth such that the ultrahard layer has a depth at the deepest point of the depression that is between 5% and 100% of a thickness of the ultrahard layer at an axis of the cutting element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. such that the depression has a depth such that the ultrahard layer has a depth at the deepest point of the depression that is between 5% and 100% of a thickness of the ultrahard layer at an axis of the cutting element, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; Eyre et al. further disclose wherein the depression (46) has a length of between greater than 0% and less than 100% of a radius of the substrate (12, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; however, the combination Eyre et al. and Chen et al. is silent to wherein the depression extends over an arc length of between 12 degrees and 140 degrees of a circumference of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eyre et al., as modified by Chen et al. such that the depression extends over an arc length of between 12 degrees and 140 degrees of a circumference of the substrate, for the purpose of design optimization, in order to improve the resistance to cracking, chipping, fracturing, exfoliating of cutting elements (refer to para 0033).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Eyre et al. and Chen et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; Eyre et al. further disclose a cutting tool (16, fig. 3) including a cutting element (10) according to claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lancaster (U.S. 2007/0181348A1) and Knuteson (U.S. D1,104,088).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights