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 § 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 1-4 and 6-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the pin external shoulder" and “the pin internal shoulder in lines 16 and 17, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The newly added recitations to claim 1 should come after line 20 of claim 1.
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) 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. 2019/0093799 in view of Sugino et al. 2018/0313168.
In regard to claims 17 and 24, Sugino et al. ‘799 discloses a threaded connection between an end of a first tubular member having a central axis and an end of a second tubular member having a central axis coaxially aligned with the central axis of the first tubular member, wherein the threaded connection comprises:
a threaded box connector 20 disposed at the end of the first tubular member, wherein the threaded box connector comprises:
a box external shoulder 22;
a box internal shoulder axially spaced from the box external shoulder;
a plurality of internal threads 23 axially positioned between the box external shoulder and the box internal shoulder; and
a box seal surface 21 axially positioned between the internal threads and the box internal shoulder;
a threaded pin connector 10 disposed at the end of the second tubular member and threadably coupled to the threaded box connector, wherein the threaded pin connector comprises:
a pin external shoulder 12 that engages the box external shoulder;
a pin internal shoulder axially spaced from the pin external shoulder;
a plurality of external threads 13 axially positioned between the pin external shoulder and the pin internal shoulder, wherein the external threads of the threaded pin connector mate with and threadably engage the internal threads of the threaded box connector; and
a pin nose 11c, 11a, 11b extending axially from the plurality of external threads to the pin internal shoulder, wherein the pin nose includes a pin seal surface 11a that sealingly engages the box seal surface 21, a major pin nose section 11c extending axially from the external threads to the pin seal surface 11a, and a minor pin nose section 11b extending axially from the pin seal surface 11a to the pin internal shoulder 11;
wherein the major pin nose section has a length Lp-major (D in fig. 5) measured axially from the external threads to the pin seal surface;
wherein the minor pin nose section has a length Lp-minor (L in fig. 5) measured axially from the pin seal surface to the pin internal shoulder wherein the ratio of the length Lp-minor to the length Lp-major is greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.50 (see table 1 where L can equal 6 and D can equal 22 and, making the ratio .27).
Sugino et al. ‘799 discloses a threaded connection as described above, but does not disclose the pin internal shoulder in contact with the box internal shoulder. Sugino et al. ‘168 teaches that providing a similar type of threaded connection either with a pin internal shoulder and box internal shoulder that do not touch (see fig. 1 or 5) or do touch (see fig. 7) is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection of Sugino et al. ‘799 to include a pin interior shoulder an box interior shoulder that are in contact 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).
In regard to claim 18, wherein the pin seal surface 11a is defined by a frustoconical surface oriented at a taper angle a relative to the central axis of the second tubular member, wherein the taper angle a ranges from 5° to 10° (see col. 2 where one angle of inclination value or the sealing surface is 5.3 degrees).
In regard to claim 19, wherein the box seal surface is defined by a frustoconical surface 21 oriented at a taper angle A relative to the central axis of the first tubular member, wherein the taper angle A is the same as the taper angle a (see 21 and 11a in fig. 3 with parallel surfaces).
In regard to claims 20-21, it is unclear as to the exact ratio of the length of the pin nose relative to length between the pin shoulders. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the nose length Lp-nose be between .1 and .3 the length between the pin shoulders because the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961).
In regard to claims 22 and 23, it is unclear as to the exact length of the seal surface 11a, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the seal length be at least .625 and less than or equal to 1.5 inches because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-16 and 25-30 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26, with respect to claims 17-24, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 17-24, Applicant argues that Sugino et al. fails to disclose a ratio of a
length Lp-minor of a minor pin nose section to a length Lp-major of a major pin nose section is greater than or equal to .1 and less than or equal to .5 because the values of the comparative examples and fig. 5 refer to EP Patent No. 1,836,426 and not the threaded connection of Sugino et al.
The Examiner disagrees, as Sugino et al. discloses that the threaded connection shown in fig. 5 and the comparative values included in table 1 are conventional and well known in the art (see paragraphs 19 and 121). Sugino et al. also discloses that the major pin nose section has a length Lp-major (D in fig. 5) measured axially from the external threads to the pin seal surface and a minor pin nose section that has a length Lp-minor (L in fig. 5) measured axially from the pin seal surface to the pin internal shoulder wherein the ratio of the length Lp-minor to the length Lp-major is greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.50 (see table 1 where L can equal 6 and D can equal 22 and, making the ratio .27). Sugino et al. discloses that a threaded connection, with the claimed ratio, is known in the art, and 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 at (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
Prosecution Insights