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 .
Affidavit/Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 3/9/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-18 based upon Conrad et al. 20190338603 in view of Morgan 20230383612 and API Specification 7-1 Addendum 1 to Specification for Rotary Drill Stem Elements under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: In this instance the declaration is more limiting than the claims. The only pipes tested were 4.0”, 4.5”, 5.0” and 5.5” drill pipes. The claims do not recite a specific drill pipe diameter. The tests cited in the declaration does not provide an indication that the claimed range of angles (about 1° to about 10°) would provide an unexpected or critical result for all diameter sizes of drill pipe. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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) 1-2, 5-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad et al. 20190338603 in view of Morgan 20230383612 and API Specification 7-1 Addendum 1 to Specification for Rotary Drill Stem Elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure 2
Referring to claims 1 and 5-7, Conrad discloses a drill pipe (100), comprising: a cylindrical body (110) having an outside diameter (D1), a pin end (at 18) and a box end ( at 16); a central wear pad (24) integrally formed on said cylindrical body and having a wear pad OD (D2); central wear pad has first and second tapered portions (see Examiner annotated fig. 2, A), and pin and box upsets ( at 22 and 20) disposed proximate the pin and box ends, respectively, said pin upset having a pin OD (at D4), and said box upset having a box OD ( at D3); the wear pad OD being less than the pin OD and box OD (see paragraph 0076, D2< D3=D4) and said pin and box upsets have a pin tapered portion ( at C) and a box tapered portion (at B), respectively. Conrad does not disclose the angle of said first and second tapered portions is from about 1° to about 10°, about 3° to about 7°, about 4° to about 6° or about 5° or the angle of said first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions. Morgan teaches drill pipe having a wear pad (100) having first and second tapered portions (104 and 106) where an angle of the tapered portion is about 5° ( see paragraph 0034, wear pad has a height H102 that can be .25 inches and see paragraph 0035, axial length L104 or L106 of the can be 1.5 inches to about 3 inches. Using the equation tangent angle of the tapered portion is equal to opposite over adjacent , H102/L104 = .25/3 the angle is determined to be 4.76°, H102/L104 = .25/1.5 angle is 9.46° ). Morgan further teaches the disclosed drill pipes have a greater service life and durability than standard tubular members (see paragraph 0017). API Specification 7-1 teaches is it well known in the art for the pin and box tapered portions of drill pipe to have angles of 18° (see fig. 11). Therefore, the drill pipe disclosed by Conrad, as modified by Morgan and API Specification 7-1 would have first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions ( Morgan teaches an angle of the tapered portion is about 5° and API Specification 7-1 teaches pin and box tapered portions of drill pipe to have angles that are 18°). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the art to modify the drill pipe disclosed by the Conrad, to have the angle of said first and second tapered portions is from about 1° to about 10°, about 3° to about 7°, about 4° to about 6° or about 5° and to have the first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions in view of the teachings of Morgan and API Specification 7-1 with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the service life of the drill pipe and because it is well known in the art for the box and pin tapered portions to have angles of 18° which is greater than 5° ( angle of first and second tapered portions).
Referring to claim 2, Conrad discloses the wear pad OD (D2) is greater than the OD (D1) of the cylindrical body (see paragraph 0076).
Referring to claims 8-10, Morgan teaches the central wear pad can have a length about 30 inches. (see fig. 3, paragraph 0035-0036, L104 can be between 1.5 and 3 inches, and L104 may range from 6.25% to 12.5 % of the total length of the wear pad L100 , when L104 is 3 inches and L100 can be about 30 inches which is about 10% of L100 and within the disclosed range of 6.25% to 12.5 %).
Referring to claims 11-13, Morgan teaches central wear pad thickness is 0.625 inches. ( see figure 3 and see paragraph 0034 T100/T58 is 1.3-2, when H102 is .25 and T100 can be .625 where the ratio T100/T58 is 1.67 which is within the disclosed ratio of 1.3-2).
Referring to claim 16, Conrad discloses a drill pipe (100), comprising: a cylindrical body (110) having an outside diameter (D1), a pin end (at 18) and a box end ( at 16); a central wear pad (24) integrally formed on said cylindrical body and having a wear pad OD (D2); central wear pad has first and second tapered portions (see Examiner annotated fig. 2, A), and pin and box upsets ( at 22 and 20) disposed proximate the pin and box ends, respectively, said pin upset having a pin OD (at D4), and said box upset having a box OD ( at D3); the wear pad OD being less than the pin OD and box OD (see paragraph 0076, D2< D3=D4) and said pin and box upsets have a pin tapered portion ( at C) and a box tapered portion (at B), respectively . Conrad does not disclose the wear pad thickness is from .5 inches to about .75 inches or the angle of said first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions. Morgan teaches a drill pad with a wear pad having a thickness from about 5 inches to about .75 inches ( see figure 3 and see paragraph 0034 T100/T58 is 1.3-2, when H102 is .25 and T100 can be .625 where the ratio T100/T58 is 1.67 which is within the disclosed ratio of 1.3-2). Morgan further teaches the disclosed drill pipes have a greater service life and durability than standard tubular members (see paragraph 0017). API Specification 7-1 teaches is it well known in the art for the pin and box tapered portions of drill pipe to have angles that are 18° (see fig. 11). Therefore, the drill pipe disclosed by Conrad, as modified by Morgan and API Specification 7-1 would have first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions ( Morgan teaches an angle of the tapered portion is about 5° and API Specification 7-1 teaches pin and box tapered portions of drill pipe to have angles that are 18°). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the art to modify the drill pipe disclosed by the Conrad, to have the wear pad thickness is from .5 inches to about .75 inches and to have the first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions in view of the teachings of Morgan and API Specification 7-1 with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the service life of the drill pipe and because it is well known in the art for the box and pin tapered portions to have angles of 18° which is greater than 5° ( angle of first and second tapered portions).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad et al. 20190338603 in view of Morgan 20230383612.
Referring to claim 17, Conrad discloses a drill pipe (100), comprising: a cylindrical body (110) having an outside diameter (D1), a pin end (at 18) and a box end ( at 16); a central wear pad (24) integrally formed on said cylindrical body and having a wear pad OD (D2); central wear pad has first and second tapered portions (see Examiner annotated fig. 2, A), and pin and box upsets ( at 22 and 20) disposed proximate the pin and box ends, respectively, said pin upset having a pin OD (at D4), and said box upset having a box OD ( at D3); the wear pad OD being less than the pin OD and box OD (see paragraph 0076, D2< D3=D4) . Conrad does not disclose the angle of said first and second tapered portions is from about 1° to about 10° or the central wear pad length is no greater than 35 inches. Morgan teaches drill pipe having a wear pad (100) having first and second tapered portions (104 and 106) where an angle of the tapered portion is about 5° ( see paragraph 0034, wear pad has a height H102 that can be .25 inches and see paragraph 0035, axial length L104 or L106 of the can be 1.5 inches to about 3 inches. Using the equation tangent angle of the tapered portion is equal to opposite over adjacent , H102/L104 = .25/3 the angle is determined to be 4.76°, H102/L104 = .25/1.5 angle is 9.46° ). Morgan also teaches , the central wear pad can have a length about 12-24 inches. (see fig. 3, paragraph 0035-0036, L104 can be between 1.5 and 3 inches, and L104 may range from 6.25% to 12.5 % of the total length of the wear pad L100 , based on disclosed range when L104 is 1.5 inches and L100 can be 12 inches – 24 inches). Morgan further teaches the disclosed drill pipes have a greater service life and durability than standard tubular members (see paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the art to modify the drill pipe disclosed by the Conrad, to have the angle of said first and second tapered portions is from about 1° to about 10°,and central wear pad having a length no greater than 35 inches in view of the teachings of Morgan with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the service life of the drill pipe.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad et al. 20190338603 in view of Morgan 20230383612, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of API Specification 7-1 Addendum 1 to Specification for Rotary Drill Stem Elements.
Referring to claim 18, Conrad, as modified, discloses the pin and box upsets have a pin tapered portion ( at C) and a box tapered portion (at B), respectively . Conrad does not disclose the angle of said first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions. API Specification 7-1 teaches is it well known in the art for the pin and box tapered portions of drill pipe to have angles that are 18° (see fig. 11). Therefore, the drill pipe disclosed by Conrad, as modified by Morgan and API Specification 7-1 would have first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions ( Morgan teaches an angle of the tapered portion is about 5° and API Specification 7-1 teaches pin and box tapered portions of drill pipe to have angles that are 18°). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the art to modify the drill pipe disclosed by the Conrad, as modified by Morgan to have the first and second tapered portions being less than the angles of said pin and box tapered portions in view of the teachings of API Specification 7-1 with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well known in the art for the box and pin tapered portions to have angles of 18° which is greater than 5° ( angle of first and second tapered portions of modification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that there are combinations of dimensions that result in angles outside of the claimed range . However, this does not take away from the fact that Morgan discloses specific examples that result in angles within the claimed range. In paragraph 0034, Morgan specifically teaches 3 specific examples for height, H102 (“1/16 in, ⅛ in, 3/16 in, ¼ in “). In paragraph 0035, Morgan teaches a specific range for the length, L104/L106 (“about 1.5 in to about 3 in”). As shown above, for a height of H102 of ¼ in or .25 in the angles formed when L104/106 is 1.5in to 3 in are within the claimed range. Therefore, Morgan teaches an embodiment where angles are with the claimed range.
The applicant further argues the declaration demonstrates the criticality of the claimed wear pad angles. As stated above the testing done in the declaration was limited to 4 pipe sizes (4.0”, 4.5”, 5.0” and 5.5” drill pipes). The claims do not recite a specific pipe diameter. The tests cited in the declaration does not provide an indication that the claimed range of angles (about 1° to about 10°) would provide an unexpected or critical result for all diameter sizes of drill pipe. Furthermore, as stated above, the Morgan reference teaches an embodiment (H102 is 1/4 inches, paragraph 0034 and L104/L106 is about 1.5 to about 3in paragraph 0035) that has angles within the claimed range.
The applicant further argues the motivation to use Morgan is not proper, stated the Kibbe demonstrates that fatigue resistance is not improved outside the claimed angle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above the declaration only tested 4 different pipe diameters. The declaration does not demonstrate that the claimed angles are critical for all drill pipe diameters. The declaration also does not refute the fact the wear pads taught by Morgan help to increase fatigue resistance, wear resistance and damage tolerance of the tubular members.
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 GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (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 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.
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights