DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 06/17/2026.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection for claims 25-28 are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-11 and 21-28 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, “substantially majority” should read “substantial.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (CN 201605326 U, citations based on translation) in view of Xin et al. (CN 205314929 U, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 25, Liao teaches a sucker rod pumping system for cathodic protection of components (see e.g. Paragraphs 0002 and 0006, pumping rod system with sucker rods having anti-corrosion cathodic protection), the system comprising:
an anodic coating coated directly on a metallic surface of one or more sucker rods of a sucker rod string of an oil and gas well to form an anode component (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, anode 2 cast by melting and forming, i.e. coated and adhered, directly onto metal sucker rod pup joint 3 of metal sucker rod string comprising several cathodic metal sucker rods 4 to be protected; Paragraph 0007, lines 4-6 and 15-18, Paragraph 0015, and Paragraph 0016, lines 1-3 and 9-12), the anodic coating having been applied directly on a majority of the metallic surface of the one or more sucker rods (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, anode 2 shown provided on a majority of the central body portion of sucker rod pup joint 3);
a cathode component comprising at least another component of the oil and gas well (see e.g. Paragraph 0007, lines 14-18, and Paragraph 0008, lines 1-2, sucker rod string in areas around the sucker rod body with the anode as well as sucker rod couplings as cathodes protected from corrosion);
wherein the anode component is electrically connected, via a conductive connection, to the cathode component (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 10-12, current flows from the anode to the protected object/cathode, necessitating an electrically conductive between the two);
wherein the anode is configured to at least partially inhibit corrosion of the cathode (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 9-16, transfer of electrons from the anode to the cathode slows corrosion of the cathode).
Liao does not teach the anodic coating having been sprayed directly on the majority of the surface of the one or more sucker rods of the sucker rod string with a thickness of between 0.20 millimeter (0.008 in.) and 0.51 millimeters (0.020 in.), but does teach the anodic coating comprising a metal such as aluminum that is consumed (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 12-14).
Xin teaches an anti-corrosion sucker rod (see e.g. Paragraph 0002), wherein an anti-corrosion layer including a pure aluminum layer is applied directly onto the majority of a surface of a sucker rod body with a thickness of 0.1-1.0 mm (see e.g. Fig. 1, pure aluminum layer 2 on majority of sucker rod body 1; Paragraphs 0015 and 0018), encompassing the claimed range of the present invention, the pure aluminum layer being consumed as it protects the sucker rod from corrosion (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 4-10).
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 anodic coating of Liao to be applied on the majority of the surface of the one or more sucker rods with a thickness of 0.1-1.0 mm as taught by Xin as a suitable thickness for a majority-covering aluminum anti-corrosive layer to be consumed for protecting a sucker rod from corrosion. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
The limitation of the anodic coating being “sprayed” is a product-by-process limitation. MPEP § 2113 states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Modified Liao teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed system as stated above.
Regarding claim 26, modified Liao teaches the cathode component and the anode component being formed with existing components of a downhole artificial lift system, each of the cathode component and the anode component configured to perform another function related to the oil and gas well (see e.g. Liao Paragraph 0007, lines 14-18, Paragraph 0008, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0016, lines 1-3, anodes provided on individual sucker rod pup joints, where the sucker rod string in areas around the sucker rod with the anode as well as sucker rod couplings are protected from corrosion as cathodes).
Regarding claim 28, modified Liao teaches the anodic coating being applied to only a portion of the sucker rod string (see e.g. Liao Fig. 1, cast anode 2 shown on only a portion of sucker rod pup joint 3; Paragraph 0015).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Xin, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Douglas (U.S. Patent No. 2,882,213).
Regarding claim 27, modified Liao teaches all the elements of the system of claim 25 as stated above. Modified Liao does not teach a sealant being applied to a portion of the anode component, but does teach the anode on the sucker rod string providing cathode current to the protected object and gradually being consumed (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 9-14).
Douglas teaches a consumable anode for cathodic protection of metals (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 15-17), wherein a consumable body of the anode is encased with a perforated plastic coating, i.e. sealant, which covers a portion of its surface (see e.g. Figs.1 and 3, consumable anode body 22 with plastic cover 26 comprising a resin coating with apertures 28; Col. 3, lines 37-46 and 65-67), this plastic covering configuration providing longer useful life for the anode and improved current distribution to the cathode (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 40-45 and 54-60, and Col. 10, lines 17-22).
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 anode of modified Liao to comprise a perforated plastic coating, i.e. sealant, covering a portion of its surface as taught by Douglas to provide the anode with a longer useful life and improve current distribution to the cathode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 21, particularly regarding the combination of the polymeric coating with an anodic coating that is directly coated on a majority/entirety of the sucker rod string and the soft metal of the anodic coating being configured to wear and recoat the sucker rod string during operation, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of claims 1 and 21 over Xie in view of Gereluk, Liao and Sable and Badrak in view of Gereluk and Sable, respectively, have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed 06/17/2021, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25 under 25 USC 103 over Liao in view of Codolar, particularly regarding the direct application of the coating of the specified thickness on the majority of the surface of the sucker rod, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lian and Xin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 21-24 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claim(s) 1 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “a substantial majority of the entirety of the sucker rod string is coated with the anodic coating….the anodic coating defining a substantially majority of an outer surface of the body of the sucker rod string…the relatively soft metal of the anodic coating configured to wear in the presence of heat and friction to recoat one or more portions of the surface of the sucker rod string during operation of the sucker rod pumping system”. The closest prior art is Li et al. (CN 106401501 A, citations based on translation).
Li teaches a protection device for a sucker rod and tubing of a downhole pumping unit (see e.g. Paragraph 0002), wherein anodes made of aluminum-magnesium-zinc alloy, i.e. relatively soft metals as described and exemplified in paragraphs 0024 and 0027 of the instant specification, are fixed to an outer wall of the sucker rod (see e.g. Paragraph 0010), and, during operation, the anodes corrode and the resultant materials are dispersed in the well fluid and adsorbed back onto surfaces of the sicker rod string to form a protective film (see e.g. Paragraph 0017, lines 6-14). Li does not teach the anode being provided on a substantial majority of the entirety of the sucker rod string, the anodes being shown covering only about a third of each sucker rod at best (see e.g. Figs. 4-6, sacrificial anode 2 on relatively short portion of sucker rod 4’; Paragraph 0039, lines 17-22) and further teaches, when considering actual conditions, not every sucker rod of the sucker rod string having the protective device (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, lines 9-16). Paragraph 0049 of the instant specification describes the term of degree “substantially” as being e.g. +10%, +5% or +2%, and there is no suggestion of 52% or more, i.e. a substantial majority, of the sucker rod string of Li being coated.
There is no teaching or motivation that makes providing the anode on a substantial majority of the entirety of the sucker rod string obvious.
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claim(s) 21 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “a substantial entirety of the surface of the one continuous sucker rod extending from the first end to the second end being coated by the anodic coating…the relatively soft metal of the anodic coating configured to wear in the presence of heat and friction to recoat one or more portions of the surface of the sucker rod string during operation of the sucker rod pumping system”. The closest prior art is Gereluk (U.S. 2008/0196235).
Gereluk teaches a coiled sucker rod string (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a continuous sucker rod provided with an anodic coating of a relatively soft metal such as zinc, magnesium or aluminum (see e.g. Paragraphs 0022-0023), relatively soft metals being described in paragraph 0024 of the instant specification as having lower coefficient of friction than the underlying metal, e.g. by up to 25%, and exemplified as metals such as aluminum, zinc and magnesium in paragraph 0027 of the instant specification. However, Gereluk does not teach this coating being on a substantial entirety of the continuous sucker rod, i.e. within up to 10% of the entirety as described in paragraph 0049 of the instant specification, and even teaches it preferably being only at weld zones of the continuous sucker rod (see e.g. Paragraph 0022, lines 7-8). Furthermore, Gereluk does not explicitly teach this coating being configured to recoat portions of the surface of the sucker rod string upon wearing in the presence of heat and friction.
There is no teaching or motivation that makes providing the anodic coating on a substantial entirety of the surface of the continuous sucker rod with the coating configured to recoat portions of the sucker rod string upon wear obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rallis (U.S. Patent No. 4,655,852) discloses a method of enhancing corrosion protection of a sucker rod in which a layer of aluminum metal about 0.01 inches thick is directly applied to a metal surface of the sucker rod.
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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights