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 .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 5/5/2026, has been entered. Claims 28-51 are pending with claims 1-27 being previously cancelled.
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 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 40: Hamre discloses a tubular hardbanded component (Hamre - title, abstr.; Fig. 30). Hamre discloses a body having an exterior top 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 a body having an exterior top surface (Hamre - Fig. 3; [0020], [0039]), 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 (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 (Wyble - Fig. 2). Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses a hardbanding treatment positioned at least partially about a portion of the body and spaced from the box and the threaded pin member, the hardbanding treatment is applied on the body such that the hardbanding treatment has a maximum diameter that is less than both the maximum outer diameter of the box and the maximum diameter of the threaded pin member (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) about the body (see above; Hamre – 10), that at least a portion of said hardbanding treatment is located above said exterior top surface of said body, the first base hardbanding layer has first and second ends of said first base hardbanding layer, 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 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 at least a portion of the first base hardbanding layer is positioned above the exterior top 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 the first base hardbanding layer that is located above said exterior top surface of said body (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 top 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).
Regarding claim 44: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that a maximum height of the continuous helically-shaped band extends above the exterior top 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 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).
Claim 41 is 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 41: Hamre, as modified by Wyble and Cheney, discloses that the continuous helically-shaped band further includes a second base hardbanding layer that is positioned about the body and that at least a portion of said second base hardbanding layer is located above said exterior top surface of said 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 said second base hardbanding layer has first and second ends; said first and second ends of said second base hardbanding layer are spaced from one another (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 portion of the top surface of the second base hardbanding layer that is located above said exterior top surface of said body, and on a portion of the top surface of the first base hardbanding layer that is located above said exterior top surface of said body (see above; Cheney - Fig. 1).
Claim 42 is 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 claim 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 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 claim 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 45: Hamre, as modified by Wyble, discloses that 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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments, filed 5/5/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 28-51 have been fully considered and at least partially persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-39 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
5/18/2026
Prosecution Insights