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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janitzki 6,464,439.
In regard to claim 14, Janitzki discloses a method of making up a threaded connection between first 18 and second 12 tubular members, the method comprising:
producing a structural formation Cr on at least one of first and second tapered threads respectively formed on the first 60 and second 64 tubular members (see col. 5, last line and first line of col. 6);
engaging the first and second threads; and
applying torque to the threaded connection, thereby causing the first and second tubular members to shoulder up (see col. 5, line 63), in which the formation causes a change in the torque a predetermined number of turns (see col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 2 where the first threads are normal until the raised thread forms are created) prior to the shoulder up.
In regard to claim 15, in which in the applying, the formation causes a sustained increase in the torque (as each additional protrusion Cr crushes in Rb the torque would increase).
In regard to claim 16, in which in the applying, the formation causes a fluctuation in torque (as each additional protrusion contacts the torque will fluctuate from the previous value).
In regard to claim 18, in which in the producing, the formation comprises a deformation of the at least one of first and second threads (Cr crushes into Rb resulting in deformed crests and roots).
In regard to claim 19, in which in the producing, the formation comprises a series of protuberances (three series of 1 protuberance Cr) on the at least one of first and second threads, with a predetermined spacing between each adjacent pair of the protuberances (see fig. 16).
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, 6-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janitzki 6,464,439 in view Hickman 9,958,094.
In regard to claims 1 and 17, 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.
Hickman teaches that using a control system configured to control a threaded connection between oilfield threaded tubular members, based on encoded data (force measurement of the load pin is entered into the electronics, see col. 4, lines 11-14), 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 Hickman, 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 an 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).
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 Hickman 9,958,094 and further in view of Pinckney, Jr., 7,793,989.
In regard to claims 11 and 13, Janitzki in view of Hickman 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 Hickman 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).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janitzki 6,464,439 in view of Pinckney, Jr., 7,793,989.
In regard to claim 20, Janitzki discloses 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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/25, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Janitzki in view of Hickman fails to disclose or suggest
communicating encoded data to a control system by producing at least one change in torque as first and second threads are threaded together. The Examiner disagrees, as Janitzki discloses threads with structural formations (Cr) that would produce a change in torque (Cr crushes into Rb, and would produce a change in torque) as the first and second threads are threaded together. Hickman discloses a system (fig. 1) for controlling a threaded connection (via the power tong and air brake) where encoded data is communicated (via 18) to a control system (22) to control the threaded connection by producing a change in torque (see the torque graph of fig. 4, where a change in torque is produced during the tightening process) as first and second threads are threaded together. Additionally, the tightening apparatus 10 of Hickman controls the threaded connection because it can automatically loosen and retighten the threaded connection based on the tightening torque results (see col. 4, line 46-61 where it states that the machine will have an alarm or signal if the joint is unsatisfactory and automatically repeat the tightening procedure if satisfactory torque is not achieved). Therefore the rejection of Janitzki in view of Hickman has been maintained.
In regard to claim 14, Applicant argues that Janitzki does not disclose making the
structural formations on a tapered threads that are intended to be shouldered up or on API threads. The Examiner disagrees, as Janitzki discloses applying the structural formations on API threads on pipes having shoulders that meet and that also have tapered threads (see col. 5, lines, 19-24 and line 61-col. 6, line 9). Janitzki only states that the tapered threads “could” be replaced, not that they necessarily are replaced. It should also be noted that claim 14 does not claim that the threaded connection is an API threaded connection or meet at a shoulder. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
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 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