DETAILED ACTION
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 1/8/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. The new rejection is set forth below. Claims 28-51 are pending. 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:
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 7, it appears that “body is less said maximum outer” should be “body is less than said maximum outer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites “wherein a top portion of said first base hardbanding layer extends upwardly above said exterior surface of said body that is located on each side of said first base hardbanding layer”. This recitation is cumbersome and unclear. It is not understood how an exterior surface of the body can be located on each side of hardbanding layer. There is only one exterior surface of the tubular component but the claim appears to state that there is more than one surface (i.e. on each side of the hardbanding layer. Although the examiner believes that the intended meaning is that each side of the hardbanding layer extends above the external surface, it would provide clarity and definiteness if the language was amended to more clearly position the recited first base hardbanding layer with respect to the exterior surface. The examiner suggests language similar to “wherein a top portion of said first base hardbanding layer extends upwardly above said exterior surface of said body” or “wherein a top portion of said first base hardbanding layer comprises two sides and each side of said first base hardbanding layer extends upwardly above said exterior surface of said body”.
Dependent claims 29-39 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 28 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 28, 32, 34, 38-40, 44, 46, 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamre (US 20150306703) in view of Wyble et al. (US 20170226807).
Regarding claim 28: Hamre discloses method for hardbanding a tubular component (title, abstr.; Fig. 3). Hamre discloses providing a tubular component 10 including a body that has an exterior surface (Fig. 3; [0020], [0039]). Hamre teaches that the tubular component can be a tubular drill string component ([0001], [0020]) but does not explicitly disclose a box and threaded pin member. Wyble discloses a drill pipe (tubular component) having a box 222 and threaded pin member 220 (Fig. 2; [0034]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the Hamre tubular component to comprise a box and threaded pin member as taught by Wyble. As Hamre and Wyble both teach tubular components used in a drill string (Wyble - [0034] teaches that a tubular component of a drill string can be a drill pipe), as hardbanding tubular components of a drill string is very well-known in the art, as Hamre and Wyble both disclose hardbanding a tubular component, and as Wyble explicitly discloses that the tubular component has a box member and a threaded pin member, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a known tubular configuration for use in a drilling string from a finite selection of drill string tubular component end connections (i.e. a pin and box configuration for adding tubular components to a drill string). Such a simple substitution, selection, and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success and no unexpected results.
Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the box is secured to a first end of the body (Wyble – 222), the threaded pin member (Wyble – 220) is secured to a second end of the body, the box has a maximum outer diameter (Wyble - Fig. 2), the threaded pin member has a maximum outer diameter (Wyble - Fig. 2), a maximum outer diameter of the body is less than the maximum outer diameter of the box (Wyble - Fig. 2), and the maximum diameter of the body is less that the maximum outer diameter of the threaded pin member (Wyble - Fig. 2) (Wyble – Fig. 2; [0034]). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses applying a hardbanding treatment 101a on the exterior surface of the body that has the maximum diameter that is less than the maximum diameter of both the maximum outer diameter of the box and the maximum diameter of the threaded pin member (Wyble – Fig. 2; [0034]). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses the hardbanding treatment is spaced from the box and spaced from the threaded pin member (Wyble - Fig. 2; [0034]). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses the hardbanding treatment forms a continuous helically-shaped band on the exterior surface of the body wherein adjacent bands of the continuous helically-shaped band are spaced from one another (Hamre - Fig. 3; [0039]). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses the continuous helically-shaped band has first and second ends (Hamre - Fig. 3; [0039]). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses the first and second ends are spaced from one another (Hamre - Fig. 3). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the step of applying results in the continuous helically-shaped band forming one or more complete rotations about the exterior surface of the body (Hamre - Fig. 3 illustrates this limitation; claims 9-10, and 12). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses one or more layers (Hamre - [0041] - at least 2 layers but could be more; Wyble - [0047] - one or more layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the continuous helically-shaped band includes a first base hardbanding layer and a first top hardbanding layer (see above; Hamre - [0041] - at least 2 layers; Wyble - [0047] - one or more layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the step of applying includes a) applying the first base hardbanding layer to the exterior surface of the body to form a continuous helically-shaped first base hardbanding layer on the exterior surface of the body (Hamre - Fig. 3), and b) applying the first top hardbanding layer on a portion or all of a top surface of the first base hardbanding layer so as to form a continuous helically-shaped first top hardbanding layer on at least a portion of the first base hardbanding layer (see above; Hamre - [0041] - at least 2 layers and helically shaped; Wyble - [0047] - one or more layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the first top hardbanding layer is fully spaced above the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre - [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface (i.e. above exterior surface); Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface (i.e. above exterior surface). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a top portion of the first base hardbanding layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body that is located on each side of the first base hardbanding layer (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3; [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface); Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface). The examiner finds that as both Hamre and Wyble teach depositing the hardband on an exterior surface and one layer on top of another, this also discloses the claimed positioning that at least a portion of each of the first and second hardbanding layers is located above the exterior surface and that the layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body.
Regarding claim 32: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body and a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the box, a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band that extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the threaded pin member (Hamre – [0041] - band is helical; Wyble - Fig. 2; [0034], [0047] – discloses claimed positioning). The examiner finds that as both Hamre and Wyble teach depositing the hardband on an exterior surface and one layer on top of another, this also discloses the claimed positioning that at least a portion of each of the first and second hardbanding layers is located above the exterior surface and that layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body.
Regarding claim 34: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses applying the first hardbanding treatment on a region of the exterior surface of the body that was absent a prior hardbanding treatment (Hamre - [0041] - can be deposited on substrate or previous layers; Wyble - [0032], [0044] - no mention of repairs).
Regarding claim 38: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that at least a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band is positioned about a central region of the body (Hamre – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39: Wyble, as modified by Hamre, discloses that the continuous helically-shaped band has a longitudinal length of 1-95% of a longitudinal length of the body (Hamre – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 40: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses a tubular hardbanded component (see above; Hamre - title, abstr.; Fig. 3; Wyble - title, abstr.; Figs. 1-3H). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses a body having an exterior surface, a box (Wyble – 222) secured to a first end of the body and a threaded pin member (Wyble – 220) connected to a second end of the body (see above; Wyble - Fig. 2; [0028], [0034]) Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the box has a maximum outer diameter, that the threaded pin member has a maximum outer diameter, that a maximum outer diameter of the body is less than the maximum outer diameter of the box, that a minimum outer diameter of the body is less than the maximum outer diameter of the threaded pin member (see above; Wyble - Fig. 2). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses a hardbanding treatment positioned at least partially about the exterior surface of the body and spaced from the box and the threaded pin member the hardbanding treatment is applied on the exterior surface of the body that has the maximum diameter that is less than the maximum diameter of both the maximum outer diameter of the box and the maximum diameter of the threaded pin member (see above; Wyble – Fig. 2; [0028], [0034]).
Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the hardbanding treatment forms a continuous helically-shaped band (see above; Hamre – 12, 14) on the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre – 10), that adjacent bands of the continuous helically-shaped band are spaced from one another, that the continuous helically-shaped band has first and second ends, that the first and second ends are spaced from one another, that the continuous helically-shaped band forming one or more complete rotations about the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre - Fig.3 ; [0039]; claims 9-10, and 12; Hamre’s Fig. 3 illustrates the recited helically-shaped band shape and positioning).
Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses one or more layers (see above; Hamre - [0041] - at least 2 layers but could be more; Wyble - [0047] - one or more layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the continuous helically-shaped band includes a first base hardbanding layer and a first top hardbanding layer (see above; Hamre - [0041] - at least 2 layers; Wyble - [0047] - one or more layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the first base hardbanding layer is positioned on the exterior surface of the body to form a continuous helically-shaped first base hardbanding layer on the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3; [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface; Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the first top hardbanding layer is positioned on a portion or all of a top surface of the first base hardbanding layer so as to form a continuous helically-shaped first top hardbanding layer on at least a portion of the first base hardbanding layer (see above; Hamre - [0041] - at least 2 layers and helically shaped; Wyble - [0047] - one or more layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the first top hardbanding layer is fully spaced above the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre - [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface (i.e. above exterior surface); Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface (i.e. above exterior surface). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses and that a top portion of the first base hardbanding layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3; [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface); Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface).
Regarding claim 44: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body and a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the box, a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band that extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the threaded pin member (see above; Hamre – [0041] - band is helical; Wyble - Fig. 2; [0034], [0047] – discloses claimed positioning). The examiner finds that as both Hamre and Wyble teach depositing the hardband on an exterior surface and one layer on top of another, this also discloses the claimed positioning that at least a portion of each of the first and second hardbanding layers is located above the exterior surface and that layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body.
Regarding claim 46: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the first hardbanding treatment is applied on a region of the exterior surface of the body that was absent a prior hardbanding treatment (see above; Hamre - [0041] - can be deposited on substrate or previous layers; Wyble - [0032], [0044] - no mention of repairs).
Regarding claim 48: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that at least a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band is positioned about a central region of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 50: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the continuous helically-shaped band has a longitudinal length of 1-95% of a longitudinal length of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3).
Claims 29 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamre (US 20150306703) and Wyble et al. (US 20170226807), as applied to claims 28 and 40 above, and further in view of Cheney et al. (US 20170130311).
Hamre and Wyble disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 29: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that formation of the continuous helically-shaped band further includes applying a second base hardbanding layer to the exterior surface of the body to form a continuous helically-shaped second base hardbanding layer on the exterior surface of the body and that the first and second base hardbanding layers are positioned adjacent to one another (Hamre; [0045], [0047] - the hardbanding layers are formed by overlapping beads deposited until the desired band width is achieved; the examiner finds that these beads disclose the claimed adjacent first and second layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a top portion of the second base hardbanding layer extends upwardly from the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3; [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface); Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface).
As discussed above, Hamre, as modified by Wyble, at least allude to more than two layers. However, Wyble, as modified by Hamre, does not explicitly disclose that the first top hardbanding layer is positioned fully on a top surface of the second base hardbanding layer and on a portion of the top surface of the first base hardbanding layer. Cheney discloses that the first top hardbanding layer is positioned fully on a top surface of the second base hardbanding layer and on a portion of the top surface of the first base hardbanding layer (Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the hardbanding treatment of Hamre, as modified by Wyble, so that the first top hardbanding layer is positioned fully on a top surface of the second base hardbanding layer and on a portion of the top surface of the first base hardbanding layer as taught by Cheney. As hardbanding tubulars is very well-known in the art and as Cheney discloses a specific application method, it would have been within routine skill to have used the specific Cheney configuration when hardbanding the device of Hamre, as modified by Wyble,. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success and without any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 41: Hamre, as modified by Wyble and Cheney, discloses that formation of the continuous helically-shaped band further includes a second base hardbanding layer that is positioned on the exterior surface of the body to form a continuous helically-shaped second base hardbanding layer on the exterior surface of the body and that the first and second base hardbanding layers are positioned adjacent to one another (see above; Hamre; [0045], [0047] - the hardbanding layers are formed by overlapping beads deposited until the desired band width is achieved; the examiner finds that these beads disclose the claimed adjacent first and second layers). Hamre, as modified by Wyble and Cheney, discloses that a top portion of the second base hardbanding layer extends upwardly from the exterior surface of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3; [0041], claim 12 – around exterior wear surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface); Wyble – abstr.; [0005] – hardfacing disposable on a surface (i.e. extends above exterior surface; Cheney – Fig. 1).
As discussed above, Wyble, as modified by Hamre, at least allude to more than two layers. Wyble, as modified by Hamre and Cheney, discloses that the first top hardbanding layer is positioned on a top surface of the second base hardbanding layer and on a portion of the top surface of the first base hardbanding layer (see above; Cheney - Fig. 1).
Claims 30 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamre (US 20150306703) and Wyble et al. (US 20170226807), as applied to claims 28 and 40 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US 20040033154).
Hamre and Wyble disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claims 30 and 42: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, does not explicitly disclose that the continuous helically-shaped band is formed of a metal alloy that includes carbon, manganese, silicon, no less than 4 wt % chromium, iron, molybdenum, and niobium. Liang discloses that a wear band can be formed of a metal alloy that includes carbon, manganese, silicon, no less than 4 wt % chromium, iron, molybdenum, and niobium (abstr.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the hardbanding treatment of Hamre, as modified by Wyble, so that the hardbanding layers can be formed of a metal alloy that includes carbon, manganese, silicon, no less than 4 wt % chromium, iron, molybdenum, and niobium as taught by Liang. As hardbanding tubulars is very well-known in the art, as Hamre, Wyble, and Liang each disclose a hardbanding treatment, and as Liang discloses a specific hardbanding composition, it would have been within routine skill to have selected the specific Liang composition from a finite selection of hardbanding compositions. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success and no unexpected results.
Claims 31, 33, 35, 43, 45, 47, 49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamre (US 20150306703), Wyble et al. (US 20170226807), and Cheney et al. (US 20170130311), as applied to claims 29 and 41 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US 20040033154).
Hamre, Wyble, Cheney, and Liang disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claims 31 and 43: Hamre, as modified by Wyble and Cheney, does not explicitly disclose that the continuous helically-shaped band is formed of a metal alloy that includes carbon, manganese, silicon, no less than 4 wt % chromium, iron, molybdenum, and niobium. Liang discloses that a continuous helically-shaped band can be formed of a metal alloy that includes carbon, manganese, silicon, no less than 4 wt % chromium, iron, molybdenum, and niobium (abstr.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the hardbanding treatment of : Hamre, as modified by Wyble and Cheney, so that the hardbanding layers can be formed of a metal alloy that includes carbon, manganese, silicon, no less than 4 wt % chromium, iron, molybdenum, and niobium as taught by Liang. As hardbanding tubulars is very well-known in the art, as Hamre, Wyble, and Liang each disclose a hardbanding treatment, and as Liang discloses a specific hardbanding composition, it would have been within routine skill to have selected the specific Liang composition from a finite selection of hardbanding compositions. Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 33: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body and a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the box and a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band that extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the threaded pin member (see above; Hamre – [0041] - band is helical; Wyble - Fig. 2; [0034], [0047] – discloses claimed positioning). The examiner finds that as both Hamre and Wyble teach depositing the hardband on an exterior surface and one layer on top of another, this also discloses the claimed positioning that at least a portion of each of the first and second hardbanding layers is located above the exterior surface and that layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body.
Regarding claim 35: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses applying the first hardbanding treatment on a region of the exterior surface of the body that was absent a prior hardbanding treatment (see above; Hamre - [0041] - can be deposited on substrate or previous layers; Wyble - [0032], [0044] - no mention of repairs).
Regarding claim 45: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body and a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the box a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band that extends above the exterior surface of the body is less than a differential height between the minimum outer diameter of the body of the tubular component and the maximum outer diameter of the threaded pin member and the threaded pin member (see above; Hamre – [0041] - band is helical; Wyble - Fig. 2; [0034], [0047] – discloses claimed positioning). The examiner finds that as both Hamre and Wyble teach depositing the hardband on an exterior surface and one layer on top of another, this also discloses the claimed positioning that at least a portion of each of the first and second hardbanding layers is located above the exterior surface and that layer extends upwardly above the exterior surface of the body.
Regarding claim 47: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the first hardbanding treatment is applied on a region of the exterior surface of the body that was absent a prior hardbanding treatment (see above; Hamre - [0041] - can be deposited on substrate or previous layers; Wyble - [0032], [0044] - no mention of repairs).
Regarding claim 49: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that at least a portion of the continuous helically-shaped band is positioned about a central region of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 51: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that the continuous helically-shaped band has a longitudinal length of 1-95% of a longitudinal length of the body (see above; Hamre – Fig. 3).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamre (US 20150306703) and Wyble et al. (US 20170226807), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Postle (US 20140131338).
Hamre and Wyble disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 36: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, does not explicitly disclose the step of at least partially cleaning the exterior surface of the body to remove oxides from the exterior surface prior to applying the first and second layers of hardbanding to the body. Postle discloses the step of at least partially cleaning the exterior surface of the body to remove oxides from the exterior surface prior to applying the first and second layers of hardbanding to the body ([0027]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have Hamre, as modified by Wyble, so as to include the step of at least partially cleaning the exterior surface of the body to remove oxides from the exterior surface prior to applying the hardbanding treatment to the body as taught by Postle. As hardbanding tubulars is very well-known in the art, as cleaning/preparing surfaces to be welded or hardbanded tubulars is very well-known in the art, as Hamre, Wyble, and Postle all discloses hardbanding procedures, and as Postle explicitly discusses cleaning an exterior surface of a body to remove oxides from the exterior surface prior to applying the hardbanding treatment, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a known method of hardbanding, including a cleaning step, selected from a finite selection of hardbanding methods. Such a selection and method step would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success and no unexpected results.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamre (US 20150306703) and Wyble et al. (US 20170226807), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Miller (US 20180161909).
Hamre and Wyble disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 37: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, does not explicitly disclose that the step of applying includes using a welding process and a wire or a cored wire and the welding process is DC straight polarity and uses an electrode negative setting. Miller discloses that the step of applying can include using a welding process and a wire or a cored wire and the welding process is DC straight polarity and uses an electrode negative setting ([0015], [0021]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have modified Hamre, as modified by Wyble, so that the step of applying includes using a welding process and a wire or a cored wire and the welding process is DC straight polarity and uses an electrode negative setting as taught by Miller. As Wyble, Hamre, and Miller disclose hardbanding, as hardbanding tubulars is very well-known in the art, as Miller teaches that DC straight polarity (electrode negative) can result in a shallower deposit of the hardfacing material on the outer surface of the work string tube and can result in little dilution and arc penetration into the box, and as Miller explicitly teaches be DC straight polarity, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a known method of hardbanding, including a particular welding method, selected from a finite selection of hardbanding methods. Such a selection and method step would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success and no unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed 1/8/2026 (Appeal Brief), with respect to the previous rejections of claims 28-51 have been fully considered and they are believed to be a result of possible confusion by the applicants regarding the basis of the rejections. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Although applicants’ arguments are moot as the reference combination has changed, the examiner has attempted to more clearly set out the rejection and has the following comments.
Hamre clearly discloses the continuous helically-shaped wear bands as recited. Hamre discloses that the helically-shaped wear bands can be applied to tubular drill string components ([001], [0020]). Hamre is silent regarding the type of connections at the ends of the tubular drill string components. Wyble is cited to disclose that tubular drill string components can be drill pipes having box and pin connections and that these tubular components are hardbanded or hardfaced. Thus, the combination of Hamre and Wyble discloses the limitations of at least independent claims 28 and 40 as recited. The other secondary references, Cheney, Liang, Postle, and Miller are cited to disclose dependent claim limitations that are directed to methods and compositions of the hardfacing/hardbanding that are not explicitly disclosed (but also not precluded) by Hamre and Wyble (alone or in combination).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller (US 20150252631), Jin et al. (US 20110220348), Winship et al. (US 5040622), Wells (US 20210138570), and Fifield (US 20120196149), in combination or alone, generally disclose hardbanding processes and positions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1/30/2026