DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on March 6, 2026 was received. Claims 1-2, 6, 27 and 33 were amended. Claims 19-25 were canceled. No claim was added. Claims 18 and 26 were withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued November 38, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “the thermal spray coating comprising” should be corrected to “the thermal spray coating consisting essentially of” for the sake of consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, on claims 1-17 and 27-33 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
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 claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US4045591) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Xia (CN105543766), Rice (US6703579), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456) and Jung (WO2017018568) on claims 1, 3-14 and 16-17 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US4045591) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Xia (CN105543766), Rice (US6703579), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456) and Jung (WO2017018568) as applied to claims 1, 3-14 and 16-17, and further in view of Bianchi (US20030035895) on claim 2 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US4045591) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Xia (CN105543766), Rice (US6703579), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456) and Jung (WO2017018568) as applied to claims 1, 3-14 and 16-17, and further in view of Richey (US20160143599) on claim 15 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US4045591) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Rice (US6703579) and Jung (WO2017018568) on claims 27-33 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rallis (US4655852) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456) and Jung (WO2017018568).
Claim interpretation: for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355. Since neither the instant specification or the claims provide clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" in the claims will be construed as equivalent to "comprising."
Regarding claim 1, Rallis teaches a method of coating a sucker rod (column 4 lines 15-20). Rallis teaches to provide a sucker rod made with carbon or alloy steel material (column 2 lines 10-15, column 7 lines 25-30). Rallis teaches to first heat treating the sucker rod (column 2 lines 17-35, column 7 lines 30-41), and then clean the sucker rod by grit blasting (blasting with an abrasive media in the abrasive media blasting device) (column 7 lines 42-48) (transferring the sucker rod to an abrasive media blasting). Rallis teaches the grit blasting is intended to clean and remove the scale on the surface of the rod for the subsequent coating steps (column 7 lines 42-50), thus it would be reasonably expected that the blasting is conducted on all lateral sides of the sucker rod. Rallis teaches to spray coat the sucker rod with aluminum by two thermal spray guns (column 2 lines 34-40, column 7 lines 45-53) (transferring the sucker rod to a thermal spray metal gun system, apply a thermal spray metal coating consisting essentially of aluminum on the sucker rod with the thermal spray metal gun system to form a thermal spray metal coated sucker rod, the thermal spray metal gun system comprises a plurality of spray metal guns to coat all of the lateral sides of the sucker rod). Rallis teaches to visually inspect the entire surface that has been processed and also to check the dimensional requirements after thermal spraying (column 7 lines 60-66) (after applying the thermal spray metal coatings on the rod, inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the rod).
Rallis does not explicitly teach the sucker rod is coiled and being transfer from a first reel to the abrasive media blasting device, the the thermal spray system, the inspection station and to the second reel. However, Fraser teaches a method of manufacturing continuous sucker rods with protective coatings (abstract, paragraph 0001) and discloses continuous sucker rod that is produced and stored on large transport reels is alternatives to conventional 20-30 feet elongated rods which permit end-to-end interconnections of adjacent rods (pargraph 0002-0003). Fraser teaches to unwind and transfer the coiled sucker rod though the grit blaster, coating stations, inspection station, and wind the coated sucker rod into a second reel after coating with a conveyance system (transferring the coiled sucker rod from a first reel to a second reel, wherein the coiled sucker rod comprises a single continues piece extending around the first reel, extending from the first reel to the second reel and extending around the second) from a first reel to the coating station including thermal spray system (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0030, 0039, 0006-0009, see figure 1).
Fraser teaches to control the speed of the sucker rod travelling along the coating line (feed rate of the single continuous piece of the coiled sucker rod) and monitor the coating process, which would include feed rate of the coiled sucker rod (paragraph 0026) (monitoring a feed rate of the single continues piece of the coiled sucker rod).
Fraser further teaches to inspect the coated sucker rod for flaws and marks on the applied coating, and the inspection station send data and/or inspection results to the central control station which controls the drive stations and coating stations (paragraphs 0038-0040) (after applying the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the rod). Since Fraser teaches the inspection is to check for flaws and marks on the applied coating, it would be obvious to inspect the metal coating immediately after the thermal spraying, thus the inspection would be after the thermal spraying station. Fraser teaches to transfer the coiled sucker rod to the second reel (paragraphs 0007, 0023-0024, figure 1). Fraser teaches to store the coiled sucker rod to the second reel (paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a coiled suck rod, which would require unwinding, transferring through treatment/coating stations and winding after coating, and also inspect the thermal sprayed coating on the sucker rod, as suggested by Fraser in the method for coating a sucker rod as disclosed by Rallis, because Fraser teaches the coiled sucker rod eliminates the weakness caused by interconnection points between conventional sucker rods (pargraph 0003) and such method of allows continuous treatments process applied on such continuous sucker rods (paragraphs 0001 and 0005).
Rallis in view of Fraser does not explicitly teaches the first and second pinch rollers. However, Voges teaches a metal processing apparatus for removing scale from the steel metal sheet (abstract, paragraph 0001), which is similar to Rallis, as Rallis also intends to remove scale from the rod (column 7 lines 40-50). Voges teaches the coil of sheet metal is uncoiled and conveyed through the apparatus (paragraph 0007, see figure 3), and discloses a first pair of pinch rollers 22 is provide to guide the uncoiled substrate in to the apparatus (paragraph 0009, see figure 3) and a second pair of pinch rollers 22 is provided to transfer the coiled sucker rod to the second reel (paragraphs 0009, see figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first and second pinch roller the conveyance system as suggested by Voges in the method of coating the coiled sucker rod as disclosed by of Rallis in view of Fraser because Voges teaches the pinch rollers facilitate the guiding of the coiled substrate to uncoil for treatments and the guiding of the treated uncoiled substrate back into a coil, which is desired by Rallis in view of Fraser.
Rallis in view of Fraser and Voges does not explicitly teach the grit blasted coiled rod has an angular profile. However, Gray teaches the sucker rod is cleaned by abrasive blasting to create angular anchor profile before a coating is being applied (abstract, column 6 lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the angular profile from the abrasive blasting as suggested by Gray in the method of Rallis in view of Fraser and Voges because Gray teaches such angular anchor profile facilitate the receiving of the coating (abstract, column 6 lines 10-25).
Rallis in view of Fraser Voges and Gray does not explicitly teach the thermal spray gun system comprising a plurality of spray metal guns being positioned at selected intervals around the coil sucker rod. However, Jung teaches an annular plasma spraying gun (thermal spraying gun) with annular body (paragraphs 0039-0041, figures 4-5), wherein the annular spraying gun is directed toward the tube or rod shape target 70 from all side of the target in a state surrounding the target wherein the plasma forming portion 50 and injection holes 60 for injecting the plasma flame 14 are discontinuously installed along an annular body (figures 4 and 5, paragraphs 20, 41 and 44). Jung teaches the target does not rotate (paragraph 0030 and abstract). Since Jung teaches the plasma forming portion 50 and the injection holes can be disconnected installed in a annular body and the plasma flame 14 are positioned at selected intervals around the rod to coat all the lateral side of the rod (figures 4-5) , Jung teaches the metal gun system comprising a plurality of spray guns, each of the spray metal guns being positioned at selected intervals around the continuous piece of the coiled sucker rod in order to coat all of the lateral side of the rod while maintaining the coiled rod in a fixed rotational position about the centerline of the coiled rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plurality of spray metal guns around the rod as suggested by Jung in the method of Rallis n view of Fraser, Voges and Gray because Jung teaches the system allow the object be treated simply by horizontally moving the object without rotating the gun or the object, the desired coting can be applied by only controlling the horizontal movement speed of the object (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 2, Rallis teaches the thermal spray metal coating is aluminum (column 7 lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 3, Rallis teaches to remove scale grease and soil from the surface of the sucker rod (column 7 lines 40-50) (removing an outside contaminant
layer from the lateral sides of the sucker rods).
Regarding claim 4, Rallis teaches to preheat the sucker rod including at a temperature below 600ºF, which overlaps with the claimed range (column 7 lines 30-40, column 2 lines 20-30). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Rallis teaches the thermal spray coating is aluminum, including aluminum alloy 1100, which is known to have minimum of 99% of pure aluminum (column 7 lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 7, Rallis teaches to pre-heat the sucker rod to formed a pre-heated sucker rod (column 2 lines 17-35, column 7 lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 8, Rallis teaches to blast the sucker rod with abrasive media and then thermal spray the sucker rod (column 7 lines 40-55), and Fraser teaches to transfer the coiled sucker rod from the pretreatment station (abrasive media blasting system) to the coating stations (including thermal spray metal gun system).
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches there are more than 3 plasma flame 14 which is injected by discontinues installed injection holes 60 and plasma forming unit 50 (figures 4 and 5, paragraphs 20, 41 and 44), thus, Jung teaches there are at least three spray guns.
Regarding claim 13, Rallis teaches the thickness of the coating is 10mils (0.254millimeter), which is inside the claimed range (column 7 lines 50-55).
Claims 5, 11-12, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rallis (US4655852) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456) and Jung (WO2017018568) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9 and 13 above, and further in view of Payne (US4045591).
Regarding claim 5, Rallis in view of Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung teaches all limitations of this claim, except applying a sealant to the thermal spray metal coated sucker rod. However, Payne teaches a method of treating sucker rod (abstract) with metal thermal spraying (column 3 lines 45-56 and column 4 lines 47-55, figure 2). Payne teaches to transfer the thermal spray metal coated sucker rod from the thermal spray metal gun system 42 to a painting station 58 to apply a polymer phenolic resin protective film (sealant) to cover the entire outer peripheral surface of the sucker rod (sealed coiled sucker rod) (column 3 lines 48-56, column 4 lines 47-55, figure 2) (transferring the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, from the thermal spray metal gun system to a sealant applicator system). Since Rallis teaches to inspect the thermal sprayed coating after the thermal spraying (column 7 lines 60-68), the combination of Rallis, Fraser, Voges, Gray, Jung and Payne teaches after inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, applying an sealant to the thermal spray metal coated coiled sucker rod to produce a sealed coiled sucker rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a sealant to the thermal spray coating as suggested by Payne in the method of Rallis, Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung, because Payne teaches the such sealant provide a self-supporting, hard protective film on the surface of the sprayed coating (column 4 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 11, Rallis in view of Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung teaches all limitations of this claim, except applying a sealant to the thermal spray metal coated sucker rod. However, Payne teaches a method of treating sucker rod (abstract) with metal thermal spraying (column 3 lines 45-56 and column 4 lines 47-55, figure 2). Payne teaches to transfer the thermal spray metal coated sucker rod from the thermal spray metal gun system 42 to a painting station 58 to apply a polymer phenolic resin protective film (sealant) to cover the entire outer peripheral surface of the sucker rod (sealed coiled sucker rod) (column 3 lines 48-56, column 4 lines 47-55, figure 2) (transferring the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, from the thermal spray metal gun system to a sealant applicator system). Since Rallis teaches to inspect the thermal sprayed coating after the thermal spraying (column 7 lines 60-68), the combination of Rallis, Fraser, Voges, Gray, Jung and Payne teaches after inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, applying an sealant to the thermal spray metal coated coiled sucker rod to produce a sealed coiled sucker rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a sealant to the thermal spray coating as suggested by Payne in the method of Rallis, Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung, because Payne teaches the such sealant provide a self-supporting, hard protective film on the surface of the sprayed coating (column 4 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 12, Fraser teaches the second polymer coating (top) has a thickness of 0.02-0.055 in (paragraphs 0009 and 0068-0069) which is inside the claimed range. Fraser further teaches if the coating is too thin, the coating would not be able to prevent the underneath coating (metal coating in Rallis and Payne) and the body of the sucker rod from mechanical damage during servicing but it’s not economical when the coating is too thick (paragraph 0069). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the thickness of the polymer sealant coating in the process of coating the coiled sucker rod to yield the desired cost for applying the coating and protection to the underneath coating and body of the sucker rod from mechanical damage during servicing. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 14, Payne teaches to transfer the sealed coiled sucker rod to a oven 66 (post heater) with the conveyance system and bake (cure) the sealant to form a cured sealant coiled sucker rod (column 3 lines 55-61, column 4 lines 50-55, figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Payne teaches to bake the phenolic resin to form a cured, self-supporting, hard, protective film (column 3 lines 50-61, column 5 lines 50-55). Since Payne teaches the curing is a baking process in an oven, the heating temperature would be reasonably expected to be higher than room temperature, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the curing temperature of the sealant in the process of coating a coiled sucker rod to yield the desired self-supporting and hardness properties of the film based on the teaching of Payne. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Furthermore, the polymer sealant of Payne and the claimed sealant are the same (phenolic resin), thus, the curing temperature of the phenolic resin in Payne would be reasonably expected to be the same as the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Fraser teaches to wind the coated sucker rod into a second reel after coatings and treatments (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0006-0009, see figure 1), thus, the combination of the references teaches to draw the cured sealant coiled sucker rod into a second reel with the conveyance system.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rallis (US4655852) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456) and Jung (WO2017018568) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9 and 13 above, and further in view of Rice (US6703579).
Regarding claim 10, Rallis in view of Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung teaches all limitations of this claim, except adjusting the spray rate of the thermal spray metal coating. However, Rice teaches a method of thermal spraying (abstract) and discloses feed rate of the thermal spray material and movement rate of the substrate is based the feedback of the powder characteristic measurement (inspection) (column 2, lines 25-42, column 3 lines 10-32, column 12 lines 49-55). Since the feed rate of the sprayed material and the movement rate of the substrate affect the actual spray rate, Rice teaches the spray rate is also being adjusted based on the inspection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the spray rate of the coiled sucker rod based on the feedback information from an inspection as suggested by Rice in the method for coating a sucker rod as disclosed by Rallis in view of Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung because Rice teaches such adjustment can improve evenness (which can be detected by the inspection by Rallis) of deposition of the sprayed thermal spray material on the surface of the workpiece (column 3 lines 10-20).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rallis (US4655852) in view of Fraser (US20170283958), Voges (US20100146757), Gray (US 4823456), Jung (WO2017018568) and Payne (US4045591) as applied to claims 1, 3-14 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Richey (US20160143599).
Regarding claim 15, Rallis in view of Fraser, Voges, Gray, Jung and Payne teaches all limitations of this claim, except the sealant applicator system comprising a waterfall sealant booth. However, Richey teaches a method of making a foam positioners (paragraph 0002) and discloses spraying (Payne’s method of applying the sealant, column 3 lines 50-60) and waterfall coating are functionally equivalent method to apply sealant (paragraph 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute waterfall (waterfall sealant booth) for spraying as the sealant coating method in the method of coating a coiled sucker rod as disclosed by Rallis in view of Fraser, Voges, Gray, Jung and Payne.
Claims 27 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rallis (US4655852) in view of Fraser (US20170283958) and Jung (WO2017018568).
Regarding claim 27, Rallis teaches a method of coating a sucker rod (column 4 lines 15-20). Rallis teaches to provide a sucker rod made with carbon or alloy steel material (column 2 lines 10-15, column 7 lines 25-30). Rallis teaches to spray coat the sucker rod with aluminum by two thermal spray guns (column 2 lines 34-40, column 7 lines 45-53) (transferring the sucker rod to a thermal spray metal gun system, apply a thermal spray metal coating consisting essentially of aluminum on the sucker rod with the thermal spray metal gun system to form a thermal spray metal coated sucker rod, the thermal spray metal gun system comprises a plurality of spray metal guns to coat all of the lateral sides of the sucker rod). Rallis teaches to visually inspect the entire surface that has been processed and also to check the dimensional requirements after thermal spraying (column 7 lines 60-66) (after applying the thermal spray metal coatings on the rod, inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the rod).
Rallis does not explicitly teach the sucker rod is coiled and being transfer from a first reel to the thermal spray system and the inspection station. However, Fraser teaches a method of manufacturing continuous sucker rods with protective coatings (abstract, paragraph 0001) and discloses continuous sucker rod that is produced and stored on large transport reels is alternatives to conventional 20-30 feet elongated rods which permit end-to-end interconnections of adjacent rods (pargraph 0002-0003). Fraser teaches to unwind and transfer the coiled sucker rod though the coating stations and the inspection station, and wind the coated sucker rod into a second reel after coating with a conveyance system (transferring the coiled sucker rod from a first reel to a second reel, wherein the coiled sucker rod comprises a single continues piece extending around the first reel, extending from the first reel to the second reel and extending around the second) from a first reel to the coating station including thermal spray system) (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0030, 0039, 0006-0009, see figure 1).
Fraser further teaches to inspect the coated sucker rod for flaws and marks on the applied coating, and the inspection station send data and/or inspection results to the central control station which controls the drive stations and coating stations (paragraphs 0038-0040) (after applying the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the rod). Since Fraser teaches the inspection is to check for flaws and marks on the applied coating, it would be obvious to inspect the metal coating immediately after the thermal spraying, thus the inspection would be after the thermal spraying station. Fraser teaches to store the coiled sucker rod to the second reel (paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a coiled suck rod, which would require unwinding, transferring through treatment/coating stations and winding after coating, and also inspect the thermal sprayed coating on the sucker rod, as suggested by Fraser in the method for coating a sucker rod as disclosed by Rallis, because Fraser teaches the coiled sucker rod eliminates the weakness caused by interconnection points between conventional sucker rods (pargraph 0003) and such method of allows continuous treatments process applied on such continuous sucker rods (paragraphs 0001 and 0005).
Rallis in view of Fraser does not explicitly teach the thermal spray gun system comprising a plurality of spray metal guns. However, Jung teaches an annular plasma spraying gun with annular body (paragraphs 0039-0041, figures 4-5), wherein the annular spraying gun is directed toward the tube or rod shape target 70 from all side of the target in a state surrounding the target wherein the plasma forming portion 50 and injection holes 60 for injecting the plasma flame 14 are discontinuously installed along an annular body (figures 4 and 5, paragraphs 20, 41 and 44). Jung teaches the target does not rotate (paragraph 0030 and abstract). Since Jung teaches the plasma forming portion 50 and the injection holes can be disconnected installed in a annular body and the plasma flame 14 are positioned at selected intervals around the rod to coat all the lateral side of the rod (figures 4-5) , Jung teaches the metal gun system comprising a plurality of spray guns, each of the spray metal guns being positioned at selected intervals around the continuous piece of the coiled sucker rod in order to coat all of the lateral side of the rod while maintaining the coiled rod in a fixed rotational position about the centerline of the coiled rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plurality of spray metal guns around the rod as suggested by Jung in the method of Rallis in view of Fraser because Jung teaches the system allow the object be treated simply by horizontally moving the object without rotating the gun or the object, the desired coting can be applied by only controlling the horizontal movement speed of the object (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 31, Rallis teaches to degrease the sucker rod (column 7 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 32, Fraser teaches the inspection station send data and/or inspection results to the central control station which controls the drive stations (transferring of the coiled sucker rod) and coating stations (paragraphs 0038-0040) (controlling the transferring of coiled sucker rod, the inspection of the thermal spray metal coated coiled sucker rod, and the thermal spray metal gun system with a computer processor).
Regarding claim 33, Rallis teaches a method of coating a sucker rod (column 4 lines 15-20). Rallis teaches to provide a sucker rod made with carbon or alloy steel material (column 2 lines 10-15, column 7 lines 25-30). Rallis teaches to spray coat the sucker rod with aluminum by two thermal spray guns (column 2 lines 34-40, column 7 lines 45-53) (transferring the sucker rod to a thermal spray metal gun system, apply a thermal spray metal coating consisting essentially of aluminum on the sucker rod with the thermal spray metal gun system to form a thermal spray metal coated sucker rod, the thermal spray metal gun system comprises a plurality of spray metal guns to coat all of the lateral sides of the sucker rod).
Rallis does not explicitly teach the sucker rod is coiled and being transfer from a first reel to the thermal spray system. However, Fraser teaches a method of manufacturing continuous sucker rods with protective coatings (abstract, paragraph 0001) and discloses continuous sucker rod that is produced and stored on large transport reels is alternatives to conventional 20-30 feet elongated rods which permit end-to-end interconnections of adjacent rods (pargraph 0002-0003). Fraser teaches to unwind and transfer the coiled sucker rod through coating stations and wind the coated sucker rod into a second reel after coating with a conveyance system from a first reel to the coating station including thermal spray system (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0030, 0039, 0006-0009, see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a coiled suck rod, which would require unwinding, transferring through treatment/coating stations and winding after coating, and also inspect the thermal sprayed coating on the sucker rod, as suggested by Fraser in the method for coating a sucker rod as disclosed by Rallis, because Fraser teaches the coiled sucker rod eliminates the weakness caused by interconnection points between conventional sucker rods (pargraph 0003) and such method of allows continuous treatments process applied on such continuous sucker rods (paragraphs 0001 and 0005).
Rallis in view of Fraser does not explicitly teach the thermal spray gun system comprising a plurality of spray metal guns. However, Jung teaches an annular plasma spraying gun with annular body (paragraphs 0039-0041, figures 4-5), wherein the annular spraying gun is directed toward the tube or rod shape target 70 from all side of the target in a state surrounding the target wherein the plasma forming portion 50 and injection holes 60 for injecting the plasma flame 14 are discontinuously installed along an annular body (figures 4 and 5, paragraphs 20, 41 and 44). Jung teaches the target does not rotate (paragraph 0030 and abstract). Since Jung teaches the plasma forming portion 50 and the injection holes can be disconnected installed in a annular body and the plasma flame 14 are positioned at selected intervals around the rod to coat all the lateral side of the rod (figures 4-5), Jung teaches the metal gun system comprising a plurality of spray guns, each of the spray metal guns being positioned at selected intervals around the continuous piece of the coiled sucker rod in order to coat all of the lateral side of the rod while maintaining the coiled rod in a fixed rotational position about the centerline of the coiled rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plurality of spray metal guns around the rod as suggested by Jung in the method of Rallis in view of Fraser because Jung teaches the system allow the object be treated simply by horizontally moving the object without rotating the gun or the object, the desired coting can be applied by only controlling the horizontal movement speed of the object (paragraph 0030).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rallis (US4655852) in view of Fraser (US20170283958) and Jung (WO2017018568) as applied to claims 27 and 31-33, and further view of Payne (US4045591).
Regarding claim 28, Rallis in view of Fraser and Jung does not explicitly teaches to apply a sealant on the thermal sprayed coating. However, Payne teaches a method of treating sucker rod (abstract) with metal thermal spraying (column 3 lines 45-56 and column 4 lines 47-55, figure 2). Payne teaches to transfer the thermal spray metal coated sucker rod from the thermal spray metal gun system 42 to a painting station 58 to apply a polymer phenolic resin protective film (sealant) to cover the entire outer peripheral surface of the sucker rod (sealed coiled sucker rod) (column 3 lines 48-56, column 4 lines 47-55, figure 2) (transferring the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, from the thermal spray metal gun system to a sealant applicator system). Since Rallis teaches to inspect the thermal sprayed coating after the thermal spraying (column 7 lines 60-68), the combination of Rallis, Fraser, Voges, Gray, Jung and Payne teaches after inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, applying an sealant to the thermal spray metal coated coiled sucker rod to produce a sealed coiled sucker rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a sealant to the thermal spray coating as suggested by Payne in the method of Rallis, Fraser, Voges, Gray and Jung, because Payne teaches the such sealant provide a self-supporting, hard protective film on the surface of the sprayed coating (column 4 lines 50-55).
Fraser teaches to inspect the coated sucker rod for flaws and marks on the applied coating, and the inspection station send data and/or inspection results to the central control station which controls the drive stations and coating stations (paragraphs 0038-0040) (after applying the thermal spray metal coating on the coiled sucker rod, inspecting the thermal spray metal coating on the rod). Since Fraser teaches the inspection is to check for flaws and marks on the applied coating, it would be obvious to inspect the metal coating immediately after the thermal spraying, thus the inspection would be after the thermal spraying station and before the sealant station (and possibly another inspection after the sealant station).
Regarding claim 29, Payne teaches to transfer the sealed coiled sucker rod to a oven 66 (post heater) with the conveyance system and bake (cure) the sealant to form a cured sealant coiled sucker rod (column 3 lines 55-61, column 4 lines 50-55, figure 2).
Regarding claim 30, Payne teaches to bake the phenolic resin to form a cured, self-supporting, hard, protective film (column 3 lines 50-61, column 5 lines 50-55). Since Payne teaches the curing is a baking process in an oven, the heating temperature would be reasonably expected to be higher than room temperature, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the curing temperature of the sealant in the process of coating a coiled sucker rod to yield the desired self-supporting and hardness properties of the film based on the teaching of Payne. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Furthermore, the polymer sealant of Payne and the claimed sealant are the same (phenolic resin), thus, the curing temperature of the phenolic resin in Payne would be reasonably expected to be the same as the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 27-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights