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
Claim 91-96 objected to because of the following informalities: These claims should be claims 90-95, claim 90 is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the claims are allowable because claim 83 is similar to claim 79 which was previously found allowable are not persuasive since Examiner determined that Allen teaches overmolding the wedges on the rod so that claim 79 is no longer allowable over the art of record.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 79, 83, 86, 89, and 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 4740101 A) in light of Pagan (US 3889579 A) and Duncan (US 20130133775 A1).
With respect to claim 79, Allen discloses a method of manufacturing a sucker rod segment, wherein the sucker rod segment includes a composite rod (col. 1 ll. 30-40), wherein the method comprises: overmolding (col. 5 ll. 35-37) an uphole wedge configuration (uphole instance of 27, fig. 2) to an uphole portion of the composite rod, with effect that the uphole wedge configuration becomes integrated with the uphole portion of the composite rod to produce an uphole integrated intermediate (col. 5 ll. 28-47), and inserting the uphole integrated intermediate within an uphole barrel (upper instance of 10, fig. 2), with effect that the uphole wedge configuration becomes wedged between the composite rod and an uphole wedge configuration counterpart of the uphole barrel (shown in fig. 2); and overmolding a downhole wedge configuration to a downhole portion of the composite rod, with effect that the downhole wedge configuration becomes integrated with the downhole portion of the composite rod to produce a downhole integrated intermediate (col. 5 ll. 28-47), and inserting the downhole integrated intermediate within a downhole barrel, with effect that the downhole wedge configuration becomes wedged between the composite rod and a downhole wedge configuration counterpart of the downhole barrel (shown in fig. 2); a sucker rod segment, comprising: a wedging-effective rod including a composite rod (upper instance of 12 in fig. 2), an uphole wedge configuration (instance of 27 not shown in fig. 2 but which will be provided around upper end of uphole instance of 12 in fig. 2), and a downhole wedge configuration (upper instance of 27 in fig. 2); wherein: the uphole wedge configuration includes a polymer material that is defined by at least one polymer; the downhole wedge configuration includes a respective polymer material that is defined by at least one polymer (col. 5 ll. 35-37); and the composite rod includes: a continuous fiber configuration (col. 1 ll. 35-40); and a matrix material configuration (col. 1 ll. 30-35); the integration between the uphole wedge configuration and the uphole portion of the composite rod is via bonding (col. 5 ll. 14-47); and the integration between the downhole wedge configuration and the downhole portion of the composite rod is via bonding (col. 5 ll. 14-47).
However, Allen fails to disclose the specific materials for the wedges.
Nevertheless, Pagan discloses using thermoplastic for the wedges (col. 4 l. 61 – col. 5 l. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used thermoplastic for the wedges in Allen as taught by Pagan (col. 4 l. 61 – col. 5 l. 9), since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results.
Allen also fails to disclose the specific material for the matric material of the composite rod, and although Allen discloses applying heat and pressure to the rod and wedge, and achieving a good bond between the two (col. 5, Allen), Allen fails to specifically disclose fusion bonding the two components.
Nevertheless, Duncan discloses using thermoplastic as the matrix material for a reinforced composite rod and a surrounding structure and fusion bonding the rod and surrounding structure (pgphs. 16, 17, 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made both the rod from thermoplastic material and to have fused the rod and the surrounding structures (wedges) as taught by Duncan in order to provide a structure with excellent chemical resistance, resistance to fatigue cracking, high impact strength, and low brittleness as taught by Duncan (pgphs. 17-21).
The limitations of claim 83 are substantially similar to those of claim 79, rejected supra.
With respect to claim 86, Allen and Duncan further discloses wherein: the matrix material configuration is in the form of a continuous phase of matrix material (Allen and Duncan fail to disclose discontinuities in the matrix material so in the lack of evidence to the contrary the matrices of the composite materials for Allen and Duncan are assumed to be continuous in phase).
With respect to claims 89 and 93, Allen and Duncan further discloses wherein: the fiber material configuration is embedded within the matrix material configuration (pgph. 33, Duncan, col. 1 ll. 30-40, Allen).
Claim(s) 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, and 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in light of Pagan and Duncan as applied to claim 83 above, and further in light of Sen (US 20160201403 A1).
With respect to claims 84 and 85, Allen fails to disclose the number of fibers.
Nevertheless, Sen discloses wherein the fiber material configuration is defined by a plurality of continuous fibers, such that a continuous fiber configuration is defined; the continuous fiber configuration is defined by a total number of "N" continuous fiber(s), wherein "N" is greater than, or equal to, 800 (pgph. 50, fig. 20) and wherein: the fibers, of the continuous fiber configuration, are unidirectionally aligned (figs. 18, 20, pgph. 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the number of fibers as taught by Sen in Allen since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results.
The limitations of claims 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, and 95 are substantially similar to those of claims 86 and 89, rejected supra.
With respect to claim 96, Duncan further discloses impregnating fibers with the matrix material (pgph. 46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 02/12/2026