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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-14, and16-20 are pending with claims 5-6 and 14 being previously cancelled.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trowbridge (US 20170246778) in view of Orbell (US 20140202766), in view of Doidge et al. (US 20160200009), and in view of Espinasse et al. (US 20170184246).
Regarding claim 1: Trowbridge discloses a wear band assembly (Fig. 10). Trowbridge discloses a pipe section 1001 (Fig. 10). Trowbridge is silent regarding the pipe section material and thus does not explicitly disclose that the pipe section is a steel pipe section Orbell discloses that downhole pipes can be made of steel ([0002]). 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 Trowbridge so that the pipe section is a steel pipe section as taught by Orbell. As both Trowbridge and Orbell disclose drill pipes, as drill pipes are very well known in the art, as Trowbridge is silent regarding the material of the pipe but does disclose that well casing is steel, and as Orbell explicitly discloses that drill pipes are steel, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific drill pipe material from a finite selection of well-known drill pipe materials. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, discloses a generally cylindrical collar (Trowbridge – 1004) coaxially disposed around, and bonded to, a selected portion of the length of the tubular member (Trowbridge - Fig. 10; [0046]; Orbell – steel material). Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, discloses that the collar has an annular wear band retention groove coaxial with the steel pipe section and that the wear retention groove has a cylindrical circumferential surface (Trowbridge - Fig. 11). Trowbridge discloses a generally cylindrical wear band 1007 rotatably and coaxially disposed within the wear band retention groove so as to be coaxially rotatable around the cylindrical circumferential surface of the wear band retention groove (Figs. 10, 11; [0104]; Orbell – steel material).
Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, discloses that the wear band is made from a material comprising polyurethane and glass fiber reinforcement of about 30% (Trowbridge - [0033], [0067], [0080]) but does not explicitly disclose that the wear band is made from a material comprising a glass-reinforced polyurethane material containing between about 5% and 25% glass by weight. Doidge discloses a polyurethane with glass fiber reinforcement of 0-30% ([0012], [0017], [0041]). 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 Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, so that the wear band comprises polyurethane and glass fiber reinforcement of about 5% and 25% glass by weight as taught by Doidge. As both Trowbridge and Doidge disclose wear bands comprising polyurethane, as Trowbridge discloses glass reinforcements of about 30% but teaches that the proportion of glass reinforcing may vary depending on the wear properties required in the application (Trowbridge - [0067]), and since Doidge explicitly teaches a range from 0-30%, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific range of glass reinforcement from a finite range selection. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, J 05 USPQ 233.
Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell and Doidge, does not explicitly disclose that the polyurethane material is a material comprising TPU. Espinasse discloses a polyurethane material that can be a fiber reinforced TPU (polyurethane thermoplastic) ([0017], [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 Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell and Doidge, so as to comprise a TPU as taught by Espinasse. As both Trowbridge, Doidge, and Espinasse are all directed to protection against abrasion, as both Trowbridge and Doidge both disclose the use of a polyurethanes, and as Espinasse explicitly teaches the use of a TPU, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific polyurethane from a finite selection of polyurethanes. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Trowbridge discloses that the wear band comprises a plurality of cylindroid wear band sections ([0106]).
Regarding claim 3: Trowbridge discloses that the cylindroid wear band sections are removably retained within the wear band retention groove by retention means selected from the group consisting of bolted connections between circumferentially-adjacent cylindroid wear band sections and snap-on connections between circumferentially-adjacent cylindroid wear band sections ([0010]).
Regarding claim 4: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the cylindrical collar is bonded to the steel pipe section by injection molding (Trowbridge - [0103]; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claim 7: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the steel pipe section has an upset end (Trowbridge - Fig. 5; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claim 8: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the cylindrical collar is located proximal to the upset end of the steel pipe section (Trowbridge - Fig. 5; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claim 9: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the outer diameter of the wear band is greater than the outer diameter of the upset end of the steel pipe section (Trowbridge [0107]; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claims 11 and 20: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the glass-reinforced TPU contains approximately 10% glass by weight (see above; Doidge - [0012], [0017], [0041]).
Regarding claim 12: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses a wear band assembly (see above; Trowbridge - Fig. 10). Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses a steel pipe section 1001 (see above; Trowbridge - Fig. 10; Orbell – steel material). Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses a generally cylindrical wear band (Trowbridge – 1004) disposed circumferentially around and bonded to a selected portion of the length of the steel pipe section (see above; Trowbridge - Fig. 10; [0046]; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claim 14: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the cylindrical collar is bonded to the steel pipe section by injection molding (see above; Trowbridge - [0103]; Orbell – steel material).
Claims 10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trowbridge (US 20170246778), Orbell (US 20140202766), Doidge et al. (US 20160200009), and Espinasse et al. (US 20170184246), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Garrett (US 3697141) .
Trowbridge, Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claims 10 and 19: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, discloses that the wear band is formed with one or more longitudinal debris channels (Trowbridge - Fig. 1; [0105], [0107]) but does not explicitly disclose a circumferential wear indicator groove. Garrett discloses that the wear band has a circumferential wear indicator groove 16 (col. 5, lines 2-6). 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 Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, and Espinasse, so that the wear band has a circumferential wear indicator groove as taught by Garrett. As Trowbridge and Garrett disclose bands rotatably mounted on a tubular member, and as Garrett teaches that it is known in the art to include a wear indicator, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific indication means from a finite number of well-known indication means. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, Espinasse, and Garrett, discloses that the wear band has a circumferential wear indicator groove (see above; Garrett - (col. 5, lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 16: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, Espinasse, and Garrett, discloses that the steel pipe section has an upset end (see above; Trowbridge - Fig. 5; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claim 17: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, Espinasse, and Garrett, discloses that the cylindrical collar is located proximal to the upset end of the steel pipe section (see above; Trowbridge - Fig. 5; Orbell – steel material).
Regarding claim 18: Trowbridge, as modified by Orbell, Doidge, Espinasse, and Garrett, discloses that the outer diameter of the wear band is greater than the outer diameter of the upset end of the steel pipe section (see above; Trowbridge [0107]; Orbell – steel material).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-4, 7-14, and 16-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant continues to argue that the Espinasse reference is not analogous art. The applicant further asserts that the final office action contained neither an express rejection of Applicant's argument nor any analysis or rationale suggesting factual or legal reasons why Applicant's argument might be flawed. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertions. The fact that the Final rejection was made using the Espinasse reference does explicitly reject the applicant’s argument regarding non-analogous art. The examiner does not believe that a legal dissertation is required. The examiner stated that the argument has merits as applicant spent 4 ½ pages explaining what non-analogous art may be. However, Espinasse is simply recited to show that it is known that a polyurethane material can be a fiber reinforced TPU (polyurethane thermoplastic). Espinasse is not cited to address any specific problem but is rather used to show that the polyurethane taught in the cited art can be a TPU (polyurethane thermoplastic). It should be noted that Espinasse is also used for mining operations and transporting abrasive materials. The Espinasse reference is pertinent for one skilled in the art of manufacturing wear resistant materials and one of skill in the downhole arts would readily look in other chemical coating arts for a non-metallic material suitable for direct application onto steel pipe, such as by injection moulding, and which preferably has relatively high inherent abrasion resistance properties (to maximize the service life of the wear bands before they need to be replaced) and a relatively low coefficient of friction (to promote both longitudinal and rotational sliding of the wear bands relative to inner surfaces of a surrounding casing string so as to minimize induced frictional resistance between the wear bands and the casing string, and thus to minimize torsional and other structural stresses induced in the tubing string by such longitudinal and/or rotational sliding).
Again the examiner appreciates the applicant’s detailed explanation and discussion regarding non-analogous art and hereby explicitly rejects applicant’s argument that Espinasse is non-analogous art. The examiner further continues the use of the Espinasse reference (at least in combination) to reject all pending claims (claims 1-4, 7-14, and 16-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luft et al. (US 7562909), and Buytaert et al. (US 20100252274) alone or in combination disclosed variously claimed features such as a wear band assembly, a tubular member, a cylindrical collar disposed around and bonded to a portion of the tubular member, and a retention groove.
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 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
2/2/2026