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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 7/9/26, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Matthew Troutman/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janitzki 6,464,439 in view Newman 6,212,763.
In regard to claim 1, Janitzki discloses (figs. 12-17) a tubular string (“for use with a subterranean well” is considered an intended use limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The tubular connection of Janitzki is capable of being used in a subterranean well and is therefore deemed to anticipate the intended use limitation of the claim), the tubular string comprising:
first and second helical threads respectively formed on first 60 and second 64 tubular members; and
a structural formation Cr on at least one of the first and second threads, the formation configured to produce at least one change in torque as the first and second threads are threaded together (Cr crushes into Rb, and would produce a change in torque).
Janitzki discloses a threaded connection for use with oil industry pipes (see col. 5, line 61-col. 6, line 9) for making a secure connection between two threaded members, but does not disclose using the pipes in combination with a control system configured to control threaded connections based on data.
Newman teaches that using a control system 28 configured to control a threaded connection between oilfield threaded tubular members whereby encoded data (52, 74) is communicated to a control system 28 configured to control a threaded connection between the first and second tubular member based on encoded data (see fig. 7 and col. 8, lines 11-33), in order to achieve a properly secured connection, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the threaded connection of Janitzki with a threaded connection control system, as taught by Newman, in order to assure that the threaded joint of Janitzki is properly tightened.
In regard to claim 2, in which the formation is further configured so that the change in torque is produced a predetermined number of turns from a shoulder up of the first and second tubulars (see col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 2 where the first threads are normal until the raised thread forms are created).
In regard to claim 3, in which the formation is further configured so that the change in torque comprises a sustained increase in torque (as more of the three crests engage the roots the torque value will increase).
In regard to claim 4, in which the formation is further configured so that the change in torque comprises a fluctuation in torque (as each protrusion engages the root and fluctuation in torque will occur).
In regard to claim 6, in which the data is selected from the group consisting of turns to shoulder up, and optimal torque (the joint of has a threaded length that results in shoulder up upon connection of 60 to 64).
In regard to claim 7, in which the formation comprises a deformation of the at least one of the first and second threads (the threads would have to deform, at least slightly as the first protrusion moves out of the first indentation and towards the second indentation, Janitzki also discloses that Cr crushes into Rb).
In regard to claim 8, in which the formation comprises a deformable structure secured to the at least one of the first and second threads (Cr crushes into Rb resulting in deformed crests and roots).
In regard to claim 9, in which the formation comprises a series of protuberances Cr on the at least one of the first and second threads, with a predetermined spacing between each adjacent pair of the protuberances (see fig. 16).
In regard to claim 10, in which the spacing is consistent between all adjacent pairs of the protuberances (see fig. 16).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janitzki 6,464,439 in view of Newman 6,212,763 and further in view of Pinckney, Jr., 7,793,989.
In regard to claims 11 and 13, Janitzki in view of Newman disclose the protuberances as being evenly spaced and a series of individual protuberances, but does not disclose the protuberances as including a varying set of protuberances that in which the spacings vary between the adjacent pairs of the protuberances.
Pinckey, Jr. discloses that providing similar types of couplings with either evenly spaced sets of protuberances 34a-c (fig. 1) on the at least one of the first and second threads 30, and in which numbers of the protuberances in the sets vary 34a-c (see fig. 2) and the spacing between the protuberances 63-64 vary (see fig. 6) is common and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to vary the number of protrusions of Janitzki in view of Newman in a set and also to space the protuberance sets at varying distances, as taught by Pinckney, Jr., because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief, filed 7/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 and 13-20 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 Janitzki 6,464,439 in view of Newman 6,212,763 and Janitzki 6,464,439 in view of Newman 6,212,763 and further in view of Pinckney, Jr., 7,793,989 in regard to claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13, as explained in further detail above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights