DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22 and 24 are pending.
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 Arguments
The drawings were received on 11/03/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicant’s representative argues the following: “In general, Pearson is directed to a downhole reamer tool. See Pearson, paragraph [0012]. Nonetheless, the Office asserts that the reamer housing 50 of Pearson is a drill rod, and that associated reamer blades 28 are stabilizing projections. Office Action, pp. 4-5. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's characterization of Pearson. First, Pearson makes clear that the ‘reamer tool’ depicted in FIG. 1 of Pearson (and described throughout Pearson) is distinguishable from the tubing/casing sections that are threaded together to form a drill string. See, e.g., Pearson, paragraph [0085] (explaining that the casing string is made up of a plurality of casing sections that are threaded together and collectively extend from the surface to a landing point within an open hole, with the base of the casing string including a shoe, which can be a reamer). Consistent with this description, Pearson fails to provide any drawing, description, or other indication that the ‘reamer tool’ of Pearson is coupled to other such reamer tools to form a portion of a drill string. This is not surprising as reamers are conventionally positioned exclusively at the distal/bottom end of a drill string. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Pearson fails to disclose a drill rod comprising a plurality of stabilizing projections that extend outwardly from the circumference of the elongate body of the drill rod, wherein ‘the drill rod is configured for end-to-end coupling to additional drill rods to form a portion of a drill string.’”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Examiner notes that the rejection herein corresponding to Pearson is directed to the embodiment introduced in figures 10-14, which introduces reamer blades “49” (not “28” as recited by Applicant’s representative) corresponding to the tubular housing “50” (see at least paragraph [0125]). Secondly, Examiner notes that the downhole assembly comprising the blades “49” is made of a nose “48” which may be structured as a drill bit, thus making element 50 a “drill rod” (see paragraphs [0121, 0166]). Furthermore, Examiner notes that it is common in the field for drilling assemblies to comprise reamer sections which are uphole of the drill bit, similar to how Pearson discloses it’s assembly. Furthermore, the term “drill rod” is not limited to Applicant’s representative’s definition as argued, unless expressly supported in the instant specification. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that a specific structural limitation must be importing into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection.
In regard to the amendment made to claim 1, Examiner notes that the language is broad in nature, in which Pearson teaches the limitation. See details in the rejection herein. Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language (i.e. structural and/or functional) in light of the specification to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution, preferably towards an allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 13-16, 19-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0274297 A1; hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Fulda et al. (US Publication 2016/0010401 A1; hereinafter “Fulda”) in further view of Smith et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0338601 A1; “Smith”).
In regards to claim 1, Pearson discloses: A drill rod (50 | Examiner notes that at least paragraphs [0121, 0166] states that the nose “48” of the assembly comprising 50 may be structured as a drill bit, thus making at least element 50 a “drill rod”) having a central axis (i.e., central longitudinal axis of 50 — at least figures 10-14 and paragraphs [0046-0051, 0125]) and comprising:
an elongate body (i.e., body of 50) having a box end portion (i.e., uphole end portion of 50) defining a first end of the elongate body and an opposing pin end portion (i.e., downhole end portion of 50 — figure 14), the elongate body having a cylindrical outer surface that defines a circumference of the elongate body, wherein the elongate body is hollow, wherein the elongate body has a length (as shown in figure 14); and
a plurality of stabilizing projections (49 | “The reamer part comprises reamer blades configured to act as stabilizer blades to center the downhole reamer tool within a well” — paragraphs [0034, 0112-0113]) that extend outwardly from the circumference of the elongate body (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14), wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end (as shown in figures 10 & 14),
wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced about the circumference of the elongate body (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14),
wherein portions of the cylindrical outer surface of the elongate body are positioned between the stabilizing projections of the plurality of stabilizing projections, wherein the portions between the stabilizing projections of the plurality of stabilizing projections are convex cylindrical segments (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14),[[ and]]
wherein the drill rod has an outer diameter (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14), and
wherein the drill rod is configured for end-to-end coupling to additional drill rods to form a portion of a drill string (Examiner notes that the uphole end of 50 is shown in couple to additional drill rods, such as, but not limited to, 12/68/78, as shown in figure 10. Furthermore, the lower end of 50 is designed to accommodate/couple to a drill rod, e.g., 80 or 82, as shown in figures 16-17, absent specific detail, similar to how it couples to the tubular shaped reaming part 14, as shown in figure 14 — paragraphs [0123, 0127-0132]).
However, Pearson is silent in regards to: wherein the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters;
wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm;
wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 4 inches.
Nonetheless, Fulda introduces a downhole drilling tool (100) comprising an elongate body (at least 114) and stabilizer(s) (124 — see figure 1), similar to that of Pearson. Fulda discloses that the stabilizers (124) can be spaced from the upper end of the elongate body (i.e., uphole box end portion of at least 114) by less than 5 feet, 10 feet, etc. (see paragraph [0026] and cross-hatching of tool 100 in figure 1). With that being said, the known dimension(s) also indicate that the length of the elongate body can be at least 2 meters.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the length of the elongate body and the space from the stabilizing projections to the first end of the elongate body, as taught by Pearson, to be where the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters and where the stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm., as taught by Fulda, since it has been held that in the case that claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima face case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, section I. Furthermore, doing so, allows for reducing rotational eccentricity of coring bits or tools (paragraph [0012] of Fulda).
Furthermore, Pearson in view of Fulda are silent in regards to: wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 3 inches.
Nonetheless, Smith introduces a downhole drilling tool (as shown in figure 2) comprising stabilizers (at least 54) and a drilling rod (at least 60, 136), similar to that of Pearson. Smith teaches that the drilling rod(s) can have an outer diameter (38, 62) of 2 inches (paragraphs [0072, 0077]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the drilling rod comprising a maximum outer diameter, as taught by Pearson, with that of Smith, to yield the predictable result of drilling different/various sized wellbore(s). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 2, Pearson discloses: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections comprise a plurality of wear strips (49) that are bonded to the outer surface of the elongate body (paragraphs [0034, 0112-0113, 0125] and figures 10-14).
In regards to claim 4, Pearson further discloses: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are arranged in a helical orientation (figures 10 & 14).
In regards to claim 13, Pearson further discloses: wherein the plurality of wear strips are bonded to the outer surface of the elongate body at the pin end portion (figure 14).
In regards to claim 14, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Pearson further teaches: wherein the pin end portion defines a second end of the elongate body (figures 10 & 14), wherein the plurality of wear strips are within 15 cm of the second end of the elongate body (Examiner notes that figures 13-14 show the plurality of wear strips to end at an arbitrary lower “second end”), and wherein the drill rod is free of any stabilizing projections at the majority of the upper end portion of the elongate body (figures 10 & 13-14). Furthermore, Fulda further teaches: wherein the drill rod is free of any stabilizing projections within 40 cm of the first end of the elongate body (see claim 1 rejection).
In regards to claim 15, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith disclose claim 1 above.
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are a first set of stabilizing projections, wherein the drill rod further comprises a second set of stabilizing projections that are longitudinally spaced from the first plurality of stabilizing projections along the central axis, wherein the second set of stabilizing projections comprises a second plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced about the circumference of the elongate body.
Nonetheless, Fulda introduces a downhole drilling tool (100) comprising stabilizers (124 — see figure 1). Fulda discloses that a plurality sets of stabilizers (124, 130 — see paragraph [0018-0019] and figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the drill rod, as taught by Pearson, to include for a plurality sets of stabilizers, as taught by Fulda, to allow for reducing eccentric rotation of the coring bit (paragraph [0019] of Fulda). Furthermore, doing so has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, subsection B.
In regards to claim 16, Pearson discloses: A drill string (10 — figures 10-14 | Examiner notes that at least paragraphs [0121, 0166] states that the nose “48” of the assembly comprising 50 may be structured as a drill bit, thus making at least element 50 a “drill rod”) comprising:
a plurality of drill rods (at least 50 — figures 10-14), wherein a drill rod has a central axis (i.e., central longitudinal axis of 10 — at least figures 10-14 and paragraphs [0046-0051, 0125]) and comprises:
an elongate body (i.e., body of 50) having a box end portion defining a first end of the elongate body and an opposing pin end portion (i.e., downhole end portion of 50 — figure 14), the elongate body having an outer surface that defines a circumference of the elongate body, wherein the elongate body is hollow, and wherein the elongate body has a length (as shown in figure 14); and
a plurality of stabilizing projections (49 | “The reamer part comprises reamer blades configured to act as stabilizer blades to center the downhole reamer tool within a well” — paragraphs [0034, 0112-0113]) that extend outwardly from the circumference of the elongate body (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14), wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end (as shown in figures 10 & 14), wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced about the circumference of the elongate body, wherein portions of the cylindrical outer surface of the elongate body are positioned between the stabilizing projections of the plurality of stabilizing projections, wherein the portions between the stabilizing projections of the plurality of stabilizing projections are convex cylindrical segments (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14),
wherein the drill rod has an outer diameter (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14), and
wherein the plurality of drill rods are coupled together end-to-end at respective couplings to form the drill string, wherein the respective couplings are interference fits (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14).
However, Pearson is silent in regards to a plurality of drills rods to comprise the claimed structural detail. Furthermore, Pearson is silent in regards to: wherein the elongate body is hollow, and wherein the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters; and
wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm;
wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 4 inches; and
wherein the respective couplings are interference fits at which the box end of a respective drill rod of the plurality of drill rods expands to form a largest end of the elongate body of the respective drill rod.
Nonetheless, Fulda introduces a downhole drilling tool (100) comprising an elongate body (at least 114) and stabilizer(s) (124 — see figure 1), similar to that of Pearson. Fulda teaches a plurality of drill rods comprising a plurality of stabilizing projections (124, 130). Furthermore, Fulda discloses that the stabilizers (124) can be spaced from the upper end of the elongate body (i.e., uphole box end portion of at least 114) by less than 5 feet, 10 feet, etc. (see paragraph [0026] and cross-hatching of tool 100 in figure 1). With that being said, the known dimension(s) also indicate that the length of the elongate body can be at least 2 meters.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the length of the elongate body and the space from the stabilizing projections to the first end of the elongate body, as taught by Pearson, to be where the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters and where the stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm., as taught by Fulda, since it has been held that in the case that claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima face case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, section I. Furthermore, doing so, allows for reducing rotational eccentricity of coring bits or tools (paragraph [0012] of Fulda).
Additionally, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to have a plurality of drill rods, as taught by Pearson, to each comprising a plurality of stabilizing projections, as taught by Fulda, as it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, doing so, allows for reducing rotational eccentricity of coring bits or tools (paragraph [0012] of Fulda).
Furthermore, Pearson in view of Fulda are silent in regards to: wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 3 inches.
Nonetheless, Smith introduces a downhole drilling tool (as shown in figure 2) comprising stabilizers (at least 54) and a drilling rod (at least 60, 136), similar to that of Pearson. Smith teaches that the drilling rod(s) can have an outer diameter (38, 62) of 2 inches (paragraphs [0072, 0077]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the drilling rod comprising a maximum outer diameter, as taught by Pearson, with that of Smith, to yield the predictable result of drilling different/various sized wellbore(s). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 19, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Pearson further discloses: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections of each drill rod of the plurality of drill rods (as introduced in claim 16 rejection) comprise wear strips (49 — Pearson) that are bonded to the outer surface of the elongate body of said drill rod in a helical orientation (figures 10 & 14).
In regards to claim 20, Pearson discloses: A method comprising:
forming a drill string (as shown in figures 10 & 13-14) within a formation (abstract and paragraphs [0046-0051, 0080, 0125]), the drill string comprising a plurality of drill rods (at least 50 | Examiner notes that at least paragraphs [0121, 0166] states that the nose “48” of the assembly comprising 50 may be structured as a drill bit, thus making at least element 50 a “drill rod”) coupled end-to-end (figures 10-14), wherein a drill rod has a central axis (i.e., central longitudinal axis of 10 — at least figures 10-14 and paragraphs [0046-0051, 0125]) and comprises:
an elongate body (i.e., body of 50) having a box end portion defining a first end of the elongate body and an opposing pin end portion (i.e., downhole end portion of 50 — figure 14), the elongate body having a cylindrical outer surface that defines a circumference of the elongate body, wherein the elongate body is hollow (as shown in figure 14), and
wherein the elongate body has a length (as shown in figure 14); and
a plurality of stabilizing projections (49 | “The reamer part comprises reamer blades configured to act as stabilizer blades to center the downhole reamer tool within a well” — paragraphs [0034, 0112-0113]) that extend outwardly from the circumference of the elongate body, wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end (as shown in figures 10 & 14), wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced about the circumference of the elongate body (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14),
wherein portions of the cylindrical outer surface of the elongate body are positioned between the stabilizing projections of the plurality of stabilizing projections, wherein the portions between the stabilizing projections of the plurality of stabilizing projections are convex cylindrical segments (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14), and
wherein the drill rod has a outer diameter (as shown in figures 10-11 & 14).
However, Pearson is silent in regards to a plurality of drills rods to comprise the claimed structural detail. Furthermore, Pearson is silent in regards to: wherein the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters;
wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm;
wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 4 inches.
However, Pearson is silent in regards to a plurality of drills rods to comprise the claimed structural detail. Furthermore, Pearson is silent in regards to: wherein the elongate body is hollow, and wherein the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters; and
wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm;
wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 4 inches; and
wherein the respective couplings are interference fits at which the box end of a respective drill rod of the plurality of drill rods expands to form a largest end of the elongate body of the respective drill rod.
Nonetheless, Fulda introduces a downhole drilling tool (100) comprising an elongate body (at least 114) and stabilizer(s) (124 — see figure 1), similar to that of Pearson. Fulda teaches a plurality of drill rods comprising a plurality of stabilizing projections (124, 130). Furthermore, Fulda discloses that the stabilizers (124) can be spaced from the upper end of the elongate body (i.e., uphole box end portion of at least 114) by less than 5 feet, 10 feet, etc. (see paragraph [0026] and cross-hatching of tool 100 in figure 1). With that being said, the known dimension(s) also indicate that the length of the elongate body can be at least 2 meters.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the length of the elongate body and the space from the stabilizing projections to the first end of the elongate body, as taught by Pearson, to be where the elongate body has a length from about 2 meters to about 7 meters and where the stabilizing projections are spaced from the first end by at least 40 cm., as taught by Fulda, since it has been held that in the case that claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima face case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, section I. Furthermore, doing so, allows for reducing rotational eccentricity of coring bits or tools (paragraph [0012] of Fulda).
Additionally, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to have a plurality of drill rods, as taught by Pearson, to each comprising a plurality of stabilizing projections, as taught by Fulda, as it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, doing so, allows for reducing rotational eccentricity of coring bits or tools (paragraph [0012] of Fulda).
Furthermore, Pearson in view of Fulda are silent in regards to: wherein the drill rod has a maximum outer diameter of less than 3 inches.
Nonetheless, Smith introduces a downhole drilling tool (as shown in figure 2) comprising stabilizers (at least 54) and a drilling rod (at least 60, 136), similar to that of Pearson. Smith teaches that the drilling rod(s) can have an outer diameter (38, 62) of 2 inches (paragraphs [0072, 0077]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the drilling rod comprising a maximum outer diameter, as taught by Pearson, with that of Smith, to yield the predictable result of drilling different/various sized wellbore(s). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 21, Pearson further discloses: wherein the drill rod is a monolithic structure (figures 11, 13).
In regards to claim 24, Pearson further discloses: wherein respective pluralities of stabilizing projections of adjacent drill rods of the plurality of drill rods are longitudinally evenly spaced to inhibit buckling of the drill string (as shown in figures 10-14).
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0274297 A1; hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Fulda et al. (US Publication 2016/0010401 A1; hereinafter “Fulda”) in further view of Smith et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0338601 A1; “Smith (‘601)”) and Salzer, III et al. (US Publication Number 2010/0096189; hereinafter “Salzer, III”).
In regards to claim 3, Pearson cites: “[ ] ...a reaming stabilizer including an outer surface (e.g. hard facing, tungsten carbide inserts, any cutting surface, laser cladding, diamond impregnated, etc.)...” (paragraph [0113]).
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are explicitly silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of wear strips comprise cladding.
Nonetheless, Salzer, III teaches a downhole drilling tool (as shown in at least figure 1) comprising a stabilizer (20) having “wear strips”/blades (22, 24), similar to that of Pearson. Salzer, III teaches that the stabilizer blades (22, 24) have a lase clad metal surface (46) — paragraph [0039] and figures 1 and 4.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the plurality of “wear strips”, as taught by Pearson, to include for cladding, as taught by Salzer, III, to prevent wear and erosion (abstract — Salzer, III).
In regards to claim 9, Pearson cites: “[ ] ...a reaming stabilizer including an outer surface (e.g. hard facing, tungsten carbide inserts, any cutting surface, laser cladding, diamond impregnated, etc.)...” (paragraph [0113]).
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are explicitly silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of wear strips comprise diamond.
Nonetheless, Salzer, III teaches a downhole drilling tool (as shown in at least figure 1) comprising a stabilizer (20) having “wear strips”/blades (22, 24), similar to that of Pearson. Salzer, III teaches that the stabilizer blades (22, 24) have diamond (50, 52) — paragraphs [0039-0040] and figures 1 and 4.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the wear strips, as taught by Pearson, to comprise diamond, as taught by Salzer, III, “[ ] ... to protect the stabilizer (20) and facilitate drilling both in a forward direction, and in a reverse direction, such as when back-reaming a borehole” (paragraph [0039] of Salzer, III). Furthermore, the abstract of Salzer, III cites: “[ ] ...diamond dome inserts to prevent wear and erosion”.
In regards to claim 18, Pearson cites: “[ ] ...a reaming stabilizer including an outer surface (e.g. hard facing, tungsten carbide inserts, any cutting surface, laser cladding, diamond impregnated, etc.)...” (paragraph [0113]). Fulda teaches a plurality of drill rods to each comprise stabilizing projections (see claim 15 rejection herein).
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are explicitly silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of wear strips comprise cladding.
Nonetheless, Salzer, III teaches a downhole drilling tool (as shown in at least figure 1) comprising a stabilizer (20) having “wear strips”/blades (22, 24), similar to that of Pearson. Salzer, III teaches that the stabilizer blades (22, 24) have a lase clad metal surface (46) — paragraph [0039] and figures 1 and 4.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the plurality of “wear strips”, as taught by Pearson, to include for cladding, as taught by Salzer, III, to prevent wear and erosion (abstract — Salzer, III).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0274297 A1; hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Fulda et al. (US Publication 2016/0010401 A1; hereinafter “Fulda”) in further view of Smith et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0338601 A1; “Smith (‘601)”) and Smith (US Patent Number 9,562,401 B1; hereinafter “Smith (‘401)”).
In regards to claim 5, Pearson discloses: wherein each stabilizing projection of the plurality of stabilizing projections extends along a respective centerline, wherein the respective centerline intersects a cross-sectional plane (i.e., cross-sectional plane comprising 49) that contains the central axis of the drill rod at an acute angle (i.e., less than 90 degrees, as shown in the annotated figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1045
1443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Pearson is explicitly silent in regards to having an acute angle.
Nonetheless, Smith (‘401) teaches a downhole tool drilling tool (8) comprising stabilizer blades (20 — figure 1), similar to that of Pearson. Smith (‘401) teaches the helical blades have a spiral angle of 13.5, 20 or 30 degrees — column 7, line 64- column 8, line 36.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the angles “stabilizing projections”, as taught by Pearson, with stabilizing projections having an acute angled with respect to the central axis of the drill rod, as taught by Smith (‘401), to yield the predictable result of to protect measurement while drilling components from wear on shoulders of the measurement while drilling components — see abstract of Smith (‘401). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 6, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Pearson further discloses: wherein the acute angle (as taught by both Pearson and Smith (‘401) — see claim 5 rejection herein) is from 10 degrees to 30 degrees (see Smith (‘401)’s column 7, line 64- column 8, line 36).
In regards to claim 8, Pearson cites: “[ ] ...a reaming stabilizer including an outer surface (e.g. hard facing, tungsten carbide inserts, any cutting surface, laser cladding, diamond impregnated, etc.)...” (paragraph [0113]).
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith (‘601) are explicitly silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of wear strips comprise tungsten carbide.
Nonetheless, Smith (‘401) teaches a downhole tool drilling tool (8) comprising stabilizer blades (20 — figure 1), similar to that of Pearson. Smith (‘401) further discloses: wherein the plurality of wear strips comprise tungsten carbide (column 8, lines 27-30).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the wear strips, as taught by Pearson, to comprise tungsten carbide, as taught by Smith (‘401), to allow for having hardfacing which is known to increase wear resistance (see Smith (‘401)’s column 3, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0274297 A1; hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Fulda et al. (US Publication 2016/0010401 A1; hereinafter “Fulda”) in further view of Smith et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0338601 A1; “Smith”) and Scott et al. (US Publication Number 2015/0060050 A1; hereinafter “Scott”).
In regards to claim 10, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith disclose the preceding claim(s).
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections extend radially outwardly from the circumference of the elongate body by less than 0.2 inches.
Nonetheless, Scott introduces a stabilizer tool which can be included on a drill pipe (paragraph [0031]), similar to that of Pearson. Scott discloses: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections (302) extend radially outwardly from the circumference of the elongate body by less than 0.2 inches (paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the thickness of the stabilizing projection, as taught by Pearson, to include for the thickness to be less than 0.2 inches, as taught by Scott, as it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, subsection A.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0274297 A1; hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Fulda et al. (US Publication 2016/0010401 A1; hereinafter “Fulda”) in further view of Smith et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0338601 A1; “Smith”) and Garrett (US Patent Number 4,662,461 A1; hereinafter “Garrett”).
In regards to claim 12, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith disclose the claim above.
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are silent in regards to: wherein the plurality of stabilizing projections are mechanically formed into the elongate body.
Nonetheless, Garrett teaches a downhole stabilizer tool (as shown in figure 1), similar to that of Pearson. Garrett teaches for the plurality of stabilizing projections (20, 50) are mechanically formed into the elongate body (10 — column 5, line 9 – column 6, line 23 and figures 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the plurality of stabilizing projections, as taught by Pearson, to be formed into the elongate body, as taught by Garrett, to provide additional support for purposes of at least help control hole angle direction (column 1, lines 15-31 of Garrett).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0274297 A1; hereinafter “Pearson”) in view of Fulda et al. (US Publication 2016/0010401 A1; hereinafter “Fulda”) in further view of Smith et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0338601 A1; “Smith”) and Di Crescenzo et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0119852 A1; “Di Crescenzo”).
In regards to claim 22, Pearson discloses: wherein the box end is configured (i.e., capable of) to form an interference fit with a pin end of an adjacent drill rod having identical geometry to the pin end of the drill rod (figures 10-14), wherein the box end has a reduced thickness that permits swelling of the outer surface at the interference fit.
However, Pearson in view of Fulda and Smith are silent in regards to: wherein the box end has a reduced thickness that permits swelling of the outer surface at the interference fit.
Nonetheless, Di Crescenzo introduces that wellbore tubulars comprising connection ends (e.g., box and pin/“interference fit” type connections), similar to that of Pearson. Di Crescenzo introduces that the wellbore tubular connection ends can have reduced thickness (as shown in light of the cross-sectional views of figures 1) to allow for expansion/swelling of the outer surface of the interference fit via a swelling dope placed between the connection ends (paragraphs [0015-0016, 0042-0043] and figures 1).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the interference fit connection(s) of the respective plurality of the drill rods, as taught by Pearson, to include for swelling the outer surface at the interference fit, as taught by Di Crescenzo, to avoid leakage/failures at the connection ends of the wellbore tubulars (paragraph [0004] of Di Crescenzo).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676