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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 and their dependents are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 9 and claim 16, line 10, the phrase “finger” should be changed to “fingers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driver” in claims 1 and 16 and “identifier” in claims 18 and 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gjerde (WO0114686A1).
Claim 19: Gjerde discloses a method of protecting a wellbore tubular (3; see Abstract; Figs. 11-12) comprising inserting an insert portion (note left portion of element 1; Figs. 11-12) of a thread protector (via 13, the protective cap is meant to be threaded/unthreaded from an external threaded portion 4, Figs. 1-20; or an internal threaded portion 13, Figs. 11-20, of a pipe) into an end of the wellbore tubular (right portion of element 3, Figs. 11-12) such that a drive portion (right portion of element 1) of the thread protector is positioned about the end of the wellbore tubular (Figs. 11-12), the drive portion having a central cavity (14; Figs. 11-12) with a plurality of pockets (15; Figs. 11-14) radially disposed about the central cavity; inserting a self-aligning bit (6, 8, Figs. 11-12) into the drive portion of the thread protector by slidingly receiving a central hub (6; Figs. 11-12) of the self-aligning bit into the central cavity; and slidingly receiving a plurality of fingers (8; Figs. 11-12) of the self-aligning bit into the plurality of pockets; and removably connecting the thread protector to the wellbore tubular by rotationally driving the self-aligning bit such that threads (threads on 1 correspond to threads 13 of pipe not shown; Figs. 11-12) on the insert portion of the thread protector matingly engage corresponding threads (13; Figs. 11-12) of the end of the wellbore tubular (Figs. 11-12; page 5, lines 14-18).
Claim 21: Gjerde further discloses terminating advancement of the self-aligning bit into the thread protector by engaging a tip (left portion of 6; Figs. 11-12) of the central hub against a bottom (bottom 14; Fig. 12) of the thread protector.
Claim 22: Gjerde further discloses connecting a shaft (right portion of 6; Figs. 11-12) of the self-aligning bit to a driver (2; Figs. 11-12) and rotationally activating the driver (Figs. 11-12; see Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde (WO0114686A1) in view of Frishof (US 3,719,984).
Claim 20: Gjerde discloses the previous limitations. Gjerde is not explicit about inserting the insert portion of another thread protector into another end of the wellbore tubular such that the drive portion of the another thread protector is positioned about the another end of the wellbore tubular; however, Frishof teaches a pipe assembly in which pipe protectors (8) are applied to both ends of a pipe member (70). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize another thread protector as taught by Frishof into another end of Gjerde’s tubular member so as to prevent damage at both ends of the tubular. The additional thread protector and insertion protocol provided in Gjerde would necessarily match up the first thread protector, namely, its drive portion (right portion of element 1) would have the central cavity (14; Figs. 11-12) with the plurality of pockets (15; Figs. 11-14) radially disposed about the central cavity; and it would add’l involve inserting the self-aligning bit (6, 8, Figs. 11-12) into the drive portion of the another thread protector by slidingly receiving the central hub (6; Figs. 11-12) of the self-aligning bit into the central cavity of the another thread protector; and slidingly receiving the plurality of fingers (8; Figs. 11-12) of the another self-aligning bit into the plurality of pockets of the another thread protector; and removably connecting the another thread protector to the wellbore tubular by rotationally driving the self-aligning bit such that threads (threads on 1 correspond to threads 13 of pipe not shown; Figs. 11-12) on the insert portion of the self-aligning bit matingly engage corresponding threads (13; Figs. 11-12) of the another end of the wellbore tubular (Figs. 11-12; page 5, lines 14-18).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gjerde (WO0114686A1) in view of Cap (US20170268712).
Claim 23: Gjerde teaches the previous limitations but is not explicit about securing an identifier to the thread protector. However, Cap teaches securing an identifier (302; a cap 300 with an identifier 302; Fig. 3; paragraph 37) to a thread protector (300; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an identifier as taught by Cap into the apparatus of Gjerde in order to provide identification of the protector and an inference to identify an attached tube (see Cap, paragraph 38).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockard (US20130105028) in view of Gjerde (WO0114686A1) and in further view of He (CN105751156A).
Claim 1: Lockard discloses a thread protection system for a wellbore tubular (see Abstract, paragraphs 2-3; Fig. 4-5), comprising a thread protector (300) having an insert portion (303) at one end and a drive portion (302) at an opposite end, the insert portion engageable with an end of the wellbore tubular (Figs. 3-5, via 203b/c), the drive portion having a central cavity (312) axially positioned about the thread protector and a plurality of pockets (311) radially disposed about the central cavity; and a self-aligning bit (note “tool” in paragraph 26) comprising a platform with a central hub (note “tool portion” that can be inserted into 312 in paragraph 26) and a plurality of fingers extending perpendicularly from a driven side of the platform (note “engagement members of a tool” in paragraph 26), the plurality of fingers radially disposed about the central hub (as can be appreciated from Fig. 4 and paragraph 26-27), the central hub slidingly receivable in the central cavity (paragraph 26); wherein whereby the thread protector is removably connectable to the wellbore tubular (paragraph 26).
Lockard is not explicit about the bit is rotationally drivable by a driver. However, Gjerde teaches a bit rotationally drivable by a driver (2; see Figs. 11-12). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a driver as taught by Gjerde into the apparatus of Lockard in order to provide a powered installation or removal of the thread protector, thusly saving time.
Lockard is also not explicit about the plurality of finger having tapered tips slidingly receivable into the plurality of pockets. However, He (Figs. 1-2) teaches a two-part coupling system (1/2) for us with pipes/tubing that uses tapered fingers (6) and adjacently arranged tapered pockets (3) so as to help guide the two coupling faces into a successful connection. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize fingers/pockets that are tapered as taught by He into the system of Lockard so as to more easily guide the two coupling faces into a successful engagement.
Claim 2: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the insert portion is receivingly positionable in the end of the wellbore tubular (via 303a/b/c).
Claim 3: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the insert portion has insert threads (303c) matably connectable to threads on the wellbore tubular (see Figs. 3-5).
Claim 4: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the insert portion is connected to the end of the wellbore tubular (note insert portion end at 303b), the drive portion (302, which can be viewed to include the portion of 300 above 303b) extends from the end of the wellbore tubular (note that 302 will extends from the tubular at 303b).
Claim 5: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the insert portion (Fig. 5, the insert portion could be viewed as including any and all interior portions of the protector opposite the exterior top surface of 302) has an inner ring (310a) and an outer ring (note outer ring of 303a), the inner ring concentrically positioned within the outer ring.
Claim 6: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the inner ring has a tapered opening (note taper at 310a) with the central cavity therein shaped to slidingly receive the central hub of the self-aligning bit (Fig. 5).
Claim 10: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the drive portion has a bottom (note bottom of 310) separating the drive portion from the insert portion.
Claim 12: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the plurality of fingers are radially dispersed about the platform with a space between each adjacent pair of the plurality of fingers (as can be appreciated from spacing between 311 displayed in Fig. 4).
Claim 13: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard, as modified by He, further teaches that each of the tapered tips are of each of the plurality of fingers is shaped for insertion into a corresponding one of the plurality of pockets (note Fig. 1 of He and the tapered finger/pocket arrangement previously discussed in claim 1).
Claim 14: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Gjerde further teaches a self-aligning bit further comprises an elongate shaft extending axially from a driver side of the platform (Figs. 11-12, note shaft extending opposite 6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an elongate shaft as taught by Gjerde into the system of Lockard in order to easily couple the bit with a driver tool.
Claim 15: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Gjerde further teaches that the elongate shaft is rotationally connectable to the driver (Figs. 11-12).
Claim 16: Lockard discloses a thread protection system for a wellbore tubular (see Abstract, paragraphs 2-3; Fig. 3-5), comprising a thread protector (300) having an insert portion (303) at one end and a drive portion (302) at an opposite end, the insert portion engageable with an end of the wellbore tubular (Figs. 3-5, via 203b/c), the drive portion having a central cavity (312) axially positioned about the thread protector and a plurality of pockets (311) radially disposed about the central cavity; and an alignable drive tool (note “tool”) comprising a self-aligning bit comprising a platform with a central hub (note “tool portion” that can be inserted into 312 in paragraph 26) and a plurality of fingers extending perpendicularly from a driven side of the platform (note “engagement members of a tool” in paragraph 26), the plurality of fingers radially disposed about the central hub (as can be appreciated from Fig. 4 and paragraph 26-27), the central hub slidingly receivable in the central cavity (paragraph 26); wherein, while the central hub is positioned in the central cavity and the self-aligning bit advances into the drive portions, the tapered tips of the plurality of fingers slidingly engage the plurality of pockets and center the plurality of fingers within the plurality of pockets (paragraph 26).
Lockard is not explicit about the bit being rotationally drivable by a driver thereby whereby the thread protector is removably connectable to the wellbore tubular. However, Gjerde teaches a bit rotationally drivable by a driver (2; see Figs. 11-12) thereby whereby the thread protector is removably connectable to the wellbore tubular (Figs. 11-12). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a driver as taught by Gjerde into the apparatus of Lockard in order to provide a powered installation or removal of the thread protector, thusly saving time.
Lockard is also not explicit about the plurality of finger having tapered tips slidingly receivable into the plurality of pockets. However, He (Figs. 1-2) teaches a two-part coupling system (1/2) for us with pipes/tubing that uses tapered fingers (6) and adjacently arranged tapered pockets (3) so as to help guide the two coupling faces into a successful connection. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize fingers/pockets that are tapered as taught by He into the system of Lockard so as to more easily guide the two coupling faces into a successful engagement.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockard (US20130105028) in view of Gjerde (WO0114686A1) and He (CN105751156A) and in further view of Spang (US 1,674,998).
Claim 7: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard further discloses that the plurality of pockets are defined between the inner ring and the outer ring but is not explicit about each of plurality of the pockets being separated by spokes extending radially between the inner ring and the outer ring. However, Spang (Figs. 5-7) teaches a thread protector (22) in which its plurality of the pockets are separated by spokes (26). As incorporated into Lockard, these spokes would be positioned between Lockard’s inner and outer ring. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize spokes as taught by Spang into the system of Lockard so as to so as to reduce the amount of material needed in the drive portion of the thread protector as well as allowing for a thicker finger to engage with the pockets, which thickened finger would be less susceptible to fracturing.
Claim 8: Lockard, Gjerde, He and Spang teach the previous limitations. Modified Lockard further teaches that the plurality of pockets comprises raised pockets (note raised pockets 314 of Lockard) and recessed pockets (e.g., recessed pockets 311 of Lockard).
Claim 9: Lockard, Gjerde, He and Spang teach the previous limitations. Modified Lockard further teaches that the outer ring has raised portions (306) about the raised pockets and recessed portions about the recessed pockets (note grooves between the raised portions 306).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockard (US20130105028) in view of Gjerde (WO0114686A1) and He (CN105751156A) and in further view of Moore (US20050278926).
Claim 11: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Lockard is not explicit about the central hub is an elongate member with a tapered bottom at a first end and a rounded tip at a second end, the tapered bottom extending from the platform. However, Gjerde teaches a central having elongate member (6) with a tapered bottom at a first end (note tapered end of 6 facing the thread protector). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a tapered end as taught by Gjerde into the system of Lockard so as to allow the shaft to more easily be fitted inside the central cavity. Further, Moore teaches a bit elongate member with a rounded tip (Fig. 5, note rounded tip 36 at opposite end of shaft 32). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a round end as taught by Moore into the modified system of Lockard so as to allow the shaft to be locked in place within a driver.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockard (US20130105028) in view of Gjerde (WO0114686A1) and He (CN105751156A) as further evidenced by Rees (US 3,651,707).
Claim 17: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations. Modified Lockard makes mention of the driver/drill being electric (see Gjerde, page 3) but is not explicit about the driver comprising a motor. However, Rees evidences an electric drill/driver which has a motor (Fig. 1, note 14). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a motor in the driver/drill of Modified Lockard so as to capitalize on a means by which electric power can be converted into rotary motion.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockard (US20130105028) in view of Gjerde (WO0114686A1) and He (CN105751156A) and in further view of Cap (US20170268712).
Claim 18: Lockard, Gjerde and He teach the previous limitations but are not explicit about an identifier secured to the thread protector. However, Cap teaches securing an identifier (302; a cap 300 with an identifier 302; Fig. 3; paragraph 37) to a thread protector (300; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an identifier as taught by Cap into the modified system of Lockard in order to provide identification of the protector and an inference to identify an attached tube (see Cap, paragraph 38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746