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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/17/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-17, and 19 are pending with claims 3-4, 12, 18, and 20 being previously cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite “wherein the first and second tool joints are forged to the tubular section”. The originally filed specification, including the drawings, does not appear to discuss forging at all.
It is noted that applicant appears to rely on this limitation as a point of novelty. However, it is the examiner’s understanding that forging tool joints on wellbore tubulars is well known.
Dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-16, and 19 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claims 1, 9, and 17 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276) in view of Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), in view of Biggerstaff et al. (US 20200399964), in view of Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), and in view of Bailey et al. (US 20180283161).
Regarding claim 1: Scott discloses a drill pipe 201 (Fig. 2A; [0003], [0065]). Scott discloses a first tool joint 203 and a second tool joint 205 (Fig. 2A; [0065]). Scott discloses a tubular section between the first tool joint and the second tool joint (Fig. 2A; [0065]). Scott discloses that the tubular section comprises a wall with an overall thickness comprising a nominal thickness and a secondary thickness (Fig. 2A; [0065] – sections 211 form the secondary thickness). Scott discloses that the secondary thickness is outer to the nominal thickness and is configured to abrade against a wall of a wellbore thereby sacrificing the material of the secondary thickness and maintaining the material of the nominal thickness (Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]).
As discussed above, Scott discloses that the tubular section comprises a wall with an overall thickness comprising a nominal thickness and a secondary thickness. However, Scott does not explicitly disclose that the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material. Eriksson discloses a tubular section wherein the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material (abstr.; [0013], [0026]-[0028] - the examiner finds that the Eriksson disclosure that the first and second alloy are both stainless steel alloys discloses the broadly recited phrase “same material’ as there is no disclosure to define any precise or different meaning of “same material’ (i.e. the Eriksson thicknesses are both generally the same material - stainless steel alloys)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott so that the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material as taught by Eriksson. As both Scott and Eriksson are both directed to tubulars having multiple layers and as Eriksson discloses a manufacturing method wherein the multi-layers can be the same material, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific layer manufacturing steps, of Scott, with those of Eriksson. Such a selection and simple substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, discussed the outer dimensions of the tool joints but does not explicitly disclose that an ID of each tool joint is less than an entire ID of the tubular section to accommodate for threaded connectors. Biggerstaff discloses that an ID of each tool joint is less than an entire ID of the tubular section to accommodate for threaded connectors (Fig. 34B, [0307], [0309], [0325]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott so that an ID of each tool joint is less than an entire ID of the tubular section to accommodate for threaded connectors as taught by Biggerstaff. As both Scott and Biggerstaff disclose drill pipe and tool joints and as Biggerstaff discloses specific and detailed drill pipe and tool joint dimensions, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific drill pipe and tool joints, of Scott with those of Biggerstaff. Such a selection and simple substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson and Biggerstaff, does not explicitly disclose that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness. Blasingame discloses that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness (Fig. 2; [0013], [0017], [0018] - depending on the size of the drill pipe, the thicknesses taught in Blasingame meet the recited limitation). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson and Biggerstaff, so that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness as taught by Blasingame. As both Scott and Blasingame disclose wear bands and as Blasingame discloses that specific wear coating thicknesses are known in the art and as Eriksson discloses that the dimensions of the components may be varied, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific thicknesses of Blasingame for the thicknesses of Scott, as modified by Eriksson and Biggerstaff. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Biggerstaff, and Blasingame, does not discuss drill pipe dimensions and thus does not explicitly disclose that a weight per length of the drill pipe is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) to that of the drill pipe. Bailey illustrates that it is known that heavy weight drill pipe has a smaller ID that the same OD size of drill pipe (Tables 1A, 1B), Therefore, the examiner finds that Bailey teaches that a pipe (with a larger ID) would necessarily be lighter than a pipe having the same OD (and same material) but a smaller ID (i.e. more material would create a weight difference). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to understand that a weight per length of the drill pipe (with a similar OD but larger ID) is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) and a smaller ID. As the dimensions and weights of drill pipe and heavy weight drill pipe are well documented and as it is mathematically certain that a pipe, having a similar OD and of a same material as another pipe, would have a lesser weight per length if the other pipe had the same OD, was of the same material but had a smaller ID. Thus, it would have been within routine skill to have understood that a weight per length of the drill pipe is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) (but a smaller ID) to that of the drill pipe. Such an understanding would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected.
Scott discloses that the first and second tool joints are forged to the tubular section ([0005]).
Regarding claim 2: Scott discloses that the drill pipe is positioned in a vertical section of the wellbore ([0003], [0004]).
Regarding claim 5: Scott discloses that the drill pipe is positioned in a horizontal section of the wellbore ([0003], [0004]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276), Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), Biggerstaff et al. (US 20200399964), Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), and Bailey et al. (US 20180283161), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noe et al. (US 20150129212).
Scott, Eriksson, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Bailey disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claims 6: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Bailey, discloses that the well can be straight, horizontal, curving, or inclined ( Scott - [0003], [0004]; Biggerstaff –[0029]) but does not explicitly disclose that the drill pipe is positioned in a section of the wellbore that deviates from a vertical direction by 45 degrees to 90 degrees. Noe discloses that the drill pipe is positioned in a section of the wellbore that deviates from a vertical direction by 45 degrees to 90 degrees (Fig. 2; 3; [0037]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Bailey, to comprise a desired deviation angle for a particular well plan as taught by Noe. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7: Scott discloses that the nominal thickness is not exposed to the wall of the wellbore (Fig.2A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276), Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), Biggerstaff et al. (US 20200399964), Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), and Bailey et al. (US 20180283161), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coleman (US 20110315261).
Scott, Eriksson, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Bailey disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Bailey, does not explicitly disclose that the drill pipe does not contain mid-tube welds. Colman discloses that a drill pipe can be seamless (i.e. no mid-tube welds) ([0020]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Bailey, so that the drill pipe is seamless as taught by Coleman. As Scott, Biggerstaff, Blasingame, and Coleman are all directed to drill pipes, as Scott and Biggerstaff, and Blasingame are silent regarding the drill pipe manufacturing (i.e. seamless or welded), and as Coleman specifically teaches that drill pipe can be seamless, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted or used seamless drill pipe. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Claims 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276), in view of Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), in view of Coleman (US 20110315261), in view of Bailey et al. (US 20180283161), and in view of Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863).
Scott, Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9: Scott discloses a drill pipe 201 (Fig. 2A; [0003], [0065]). Scott discloses a first tool joint 203 and a second tool joint 205 (Fig. 2A; [0065]). Scott discloses a tubular section between the first tool joint and the second tool joint (Fig. 2A; [0065]). Scott discloses that the tubular section comprises a wall with an overall thickness comprising a nominal thickness and a secondary thickness (Fig. 2A; [0065] – sections 211 form the secondary thickness). Scott discloses that the secondary thickness is outer to the nominal thickness (Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]).
As discussed above, Scott discloses that the tubular section comprises a wall with an overall thickness comprising a nominal thickness and a secondary thickness. However, Scott does not explicitly disclose that the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material. Eriksson discloses a tubular section wherein the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material (abstr.; [0013], [0026]-[0028] - the examiner finds that the Eriksson disclosure that the first and second alloy are both stainless steel alloys discloses the broadly recited phrase “same material’ as there is no disclosure to define any precise or different meaning of “same material’ (i.e. the Eriksson thicknesses are both generally the same material - stainless steel alloys)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott so that the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material as taught by Eriksson. As both Scott and Eriksson are both directed to tubulars having multiple layers and as Eriksson discloses a manufacturing method wherein the multi-layers can be the same material, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific layer manufacturing steps, of Scott, with those of Eriksson. Such a selection and simple substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, does not explicitly disclose that the drill pipe does not contain mid-tube welds. Colman discloses that a drill pipe can be seamless (i.e. no mid-tube welds) ([0020]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, so that the drill pipe is seamless as taught by Coleman. As both Scott and Coleman are directed to drill pipes, as Scott is silent regarding the drill pipe manufacturing (i.e. seamless or welded), and as Coleman specifically teaches that drill pipe can be seamless, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific type of drill pipe configuration from a finite selection of drill pipe configurations (i.e. welded or seamless). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, and Coleman, does not discuss drill pipe dimensions and thus does not explicitly disclose that a weight per length of the drill pipe is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) to that of the drill pipe. Bailey illustrates that it is known that heavy weight drill pipe has a smaller ID that the same OD size of drill pipe (Tables 1A, 1B), Therefore, the examiner finds that Bailey teaches that a pipe (with a larger ID) would necessarily be lighter than a pipe having the same OD (and same material) but a smaller ID (i.e. more material would create a weight difference). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to understand that a weight per length of the drill pipe (with a similar OD but larger ID) is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) and a smaller ID. As the dimensions and weights of drill pipe and heavy weight drill pipe are well documented and as it is mathematically certain that a pipe, having a similar OD and of a same material as another pipe, would have a lesser weight per length if the other pipe had the same OD, was of the same material but had a smaller ID. Thus, it would have been within routine skill to have understood that a weight per length of the drill pipe is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) (but a smaller ID) to that of the drill pipe. Such an understanding would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, and Bailey, does not explicitly disclose that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness. Blasingame discloses that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness (Fig. 2; [0013], [0017], [0018] - depending on the size of the drill pipe, the thicknesses taught in Blasingame meet the recited limitation). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson and Biggerstaff, so that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness as taught by Blasingame. As both Scott and Blasingame disclose wear bands and as Blasingame discloses that specific wear coating thicknesses are known in the art and as Eriksson discloses that the dimensions of the components may be varied, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific thicknesses of Blasingame for the thicknesses of Scott, as modified by Eriksson and Biggerstaff. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott discloses that the first and second tool joints are forged to the tubular section ([0005]).
Regarding claim 11: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, discloses that the drill pipe is positioned in a horizontal section of the wellbore (Scott - [0004] – wells can be horizontal: Bailey – [0141] – wells can be horizontal).
Regarding claim 13: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, discloses that the secondary thickness is outer to the nominal thickness and is configured to abrade against a wall of a wellbore thereby reducing the secondary thickness and maintaining the nominal thickness (Scott - Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]).
Regarding claim 14: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, discloses that the nominal thickness is configured to not abrade against the wall of the wellbore due the secondary thickness preventing contact between the wall of the wellbore and the nominal thickness (Scott - Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]).
Regarding claim 15: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, discloses that an inner diameter (ID) of the tubular section Is uniform (Eriksson – Fig. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276), Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), Coleman (US 20110315261), Bailey et al. (US 20180283161), and Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Noe et al. (US 20150129212).
Scott, Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, Blasingame, and Noe disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, discloses the well can be straight, horizontal, curving, or inclined ( Scott - [0003], [0004]) but does not explicitly disclose that that the drill pipe is positioned in a section of a wellbore that deviates from a vertical direction by 45 degrees to 90 degrees. (Dallas - Figs. 1, 8; col. 6, lines 30-34). Noe discloses that the drill pipe is positioned in a section of the wellbore that deviates from a vertical direction by 45 degrees to 90 degrees (Fig. 2; 3; [0037]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, to comprise a desired deviation angle for a particular well plan as taught by Noe. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276), Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), Coleman (US 20110315261), Bailey et al. (US 20180283161), and Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Biggerstaff et al. (US 20200399964).
Scott, Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, Blasingame, and Biggerstaff, disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, does not explicitly disclose that an ID of each tool joint is less than an ID of the tubular section to accommodate for threaded connectors. Biggerstaff discloses that an ID of each tool joint is less than an ID of the tubular section to accommodate for threaded connectors Fig. 34B, [0307], [0309], [0325]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, so that an ID of each tool joint is less than an entire ID of the tubular section to accommodate for threaded connectors as taught by Biggerstaff. As Scott, Coleman, and Biggerstaff all disclose drill pipe and tool joints and as Biggerstaff discloses specific and detailed drill pipe and tool joint dimensions, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific drill pipe and tool joints, of Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Coleman, Bailey, and Blasingame, with those of Biggerstaff. Such a simple substitution and selection would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276) in view of Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), in view of Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), and in view of Bailey et al. (US 20180283161).
Scott, Eriksson, Bailey, and Blasingame disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17: Scott discloses a method for preventing a reduction in a nominal thickness of a drill pipe (Fig. 2A; [0003], [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]). Scott discloses positioning the drill pipe in a wellbore ([0002], [0061]). Scott discloses that a wall of the drill pipe comprises an overall thickness comprising the nominal thickness and a secondary thickness (Fig. 2A; [0065] – sections 211 form the secondary thickness). Scott discloses that the secondary thickness is outer to the nominal thickness (Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]).
As discussed above, Scott discloses that the tubular section comprises a wall with an overall thickness comprising a nominal thickness and a secondary thickness. However, Scott does not explicitly disclose that the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material. Eriksson discloses a tubular section wherein the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material (abstr.; [0013], [0026]-[0028] - the examiner finds that the Eriksson disclosure that the first and second alloy are both stainless steel alloys discloses the broadly recited phrase “same material’ as there is no disclosure to define any precise or different meaning of “same material’ (i.e. the Eriksson thicknesses are both generally the same material - stainless steel alloys)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott so that the secondary thickness and the nominal thickness are made of the same material as taught by Eriksson. As both Scott and Eriksson are both directed to tubulars having multiple layers and as Eriksson discloses a manufacturing method wherein the multi-layers can be the same material, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific layer manufacturing steps, of Scott, with those of Eriksson. Such a selection and simple substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott discloses manipulating the drill pipe in the wellbore, causing the drill pipe’s outer surface to contact a wall of the wellbore (Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]). Scott discloses sacrificing the material of the secondary thickness due to abrasive forces between the wall of the wellbore and the drill pipe and maintaining the material of the nominal thickness (Fig. 2A; [0013], [0014], [0041], [0060], [0065]).
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, does not explicitly disclose that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness. Blasingame discloses that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness (Fig. 2; [0013], [0017], [0018] - depending on the size of the drill pipe, the thicknesses taught in Blasingame meet the recited limitation). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, so that the secondary thickness is at least 10% of the nominal thickness as taught by Blasingame. As both Scott and Blasingame disclose wear bands and as Blasingame discloses that specific wear coating thicknesses are known in the art and as Eriksson discloses that the dimensions of the components may be varied, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted the specific thicknesses of Blasingame for the thicknesses of Scott, as modified by Eriksson. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Scott, as modified by Eriksson, and Blasingame, does not discuss drill pipe dimensions and thus does not explicitly disclose that a weight per length of the drill pipe is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) to that of the drill pipe. Bailey illustrates that it is known that heavy weight drill pipe has a smaller ID that the same OD size of drill pipe (Tables 1A, 1B), Therefore, the examiner finds that Bailey teaches that a pipe (with a larger ID) would necessarily be lighter than a pipe having the same OD (and same material) but a smaller ID (i.e. more material would create a weight difference). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to understand that a weight per length of the drill pipe (with a similar OD but larger ID) is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) and a smaller ID. As the dimensions and weights of drill pipe and heavy weight drill pipe are well documented and as it is mathematically certain that a pipe, having a similar OD and of a same material as another pipe, would have a lesser weight per length if the other pipe had the same OD, was of the same material but had a smaller ID. Thus, it would have been within routine skill to have understood that a weight per length of the drill pipe is less than a weight per length of a heavy weight drill pipe having a similar outer diameter (OD) (but a smaller ID) to that of the drill pipe. Such an understanding would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected.
Scott discloses that the first and second tool joints are forged to the tubular section ([0005]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200056276), Eriksson et al. (US 20200408336), Blasingame et al. (US 20170096863), and Bailey et al. (US 20180283161), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Coleman (US 20110315261).
Scott, Eriksson, Blasingame, Bailey, and Coleman disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19: Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Blasingame, and Bailey, does not explicitly disclose that the drill pipe does not contain mid-tube welds. Colman discloses that a drill pipe can be seamless (i.e. no mid-tube welds) ([0020]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Scott, as modified by Eriksson, Blasingame, and Bailey, so that the drill pipe is seamless as taught by Coleman. As Scott, Blasingame, and Coleman are all directed to drill pipes, as Scott and Blasingame are silent regarding the drill pipe manufacturing (i.e. seamless or welded), and as Coleman specifically teaches that drill pipe can be seamless, it would have been within routine skill to have substituted or used seamless drill pipe. Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 6/17/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-17, and 19 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose the newly amended features "wherein the first and second tool joints are forged to the tubular section”. The examiner disagrees as Scott discloses that tool joints can be made of forged, heat treated steels ([0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights