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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto 2020/0166163.
In regard to claim 1, discloses an oil-well metal pipe, comprising:
a pipe main body including a first end portion 5 and a second end portion 8;
wherein:
the pipe main body includes:
a pin 6 formed at the first end portion, and
a box 7 formed at the second end portion (see paragraph 51);
the pin includes:
a pin contact surface including an external thread part 4;
the box includes:
a box contact surface including an internal thread part 7:
the oil-well metal pipe further comprising:
a resin coating on or above at least one of the pin contact surface and the box contact surface, the resin coating containing:
an epoxy resin: 40.0 to 97.0 mass% (see claim 13),
a magnesium silicate hydroxide powder: 3.0 to 50.0 mass% (see paragraph 43, which lists talc as one of the solid lubricant powders and talc is magnesium silicate hydroxide and also see claim 13), and
a rust preventive pigment in the range of 1 to 30 mass% (see paragraph 81 and paragraph 83 where it states that the rust additive is preferably in the range of 2 to 10 mass%) and
satisfying Formula (1): (Cw+Cf+Cg)/(Cmg +CTiO2+ Csi) ≤ 0.28 (1) (Cw, Ce and Cg are all 0 values and 0/Cmg is ≤ .28)
where, in Formula (1), a content in mass% of the wax is substituted for Cw, a content in mass% of the fluorine-based additive is substituted for Cr, a content in mass% of the graphite is substituted for Cc, a content in mass% of the magnesium silicate hydroxide powder is substituted for Cag, a content in mass% of the TiO2 is substituted for Crioz, and a content in mass of the silane coupling agent is substituted for Csi.
Goto discloses that the solid lubricating powder can be selected from one or more types of material (see claim 19), but does not positively recite that the solid lubricant contains a wax, fluorine based additive or graphite. So, Goto discloses a solid lubricant powder that could only consist of talc and the rust preventive. In this circumstance, the values for Cw, Cf and Cg are all 0 values and the numerator of the equation would be 0, and 0/Cmg is ≤ .28.
In regard to claim 2, wherein: the pin contact surface further includes a pin sealing surface 10 and a pin shoulder surface 11, and
the box contact surface further includes a box sealing surface 13 and a box shoulder surface 12.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abe et al. 2023/0312946.
In regard to claim 1, discloses an oil-well metal pipe (see figs. 5-8), comprising:
a pipe main body including a first end portion and a second end portion;
wherein:
the pipe main body includes:
a pin 10A formed at the first end portion, and
a box 10B formed at the second end portion;
the pin includes:
a pin contact surface including an external thread part 41;
the box includes:
a box contact surface including an internal thread part 51:
the oil-well metal pipe further comprising:
a resin coating on or above at least one of the pin contact surface and the box contact surface, the resin coating containing:
an epoxy resin: 40.0 to 97.0 mass% (see claim 3),
a magnesium silicate hydroxide powder: 3.0 to 50.0 mass% (see paragraph 111 and claim 11, which lists talc as one of the solid lubricant powders and talc is magnesium silicate hydroxide and also see claim 13),
a rust preventive pigment in the range of 1 to 30 mass% (see paragraph 165 where it states that the rust additive is preferably in the range of 5 to 30 mass%) and
satisfying Formula (1): (Cw+Ce+Cg)/(Cmg +CTiO2+ Csi) ≤ 0.28 (1) (Cw, Ce and Cg are all 0 values and 0/Cmg is ≤ .28)
where, in Formula (1), a content in mass% of the wax is substituted for Cw, a content in mass% of the fluorine-based additive is substituted for Cr, a content in mass% of the graphite is substituted for Cc, a content in mass% of the magnesium silicate hydroxide powder is substituted for Cag, a content in mass% of the TiO2 is substituted for Crioz, and a content in mass of the silane coupling agent is substituted for Csi.
Abe et al. discloses that the solid lubricating powder can be selected from one or more types of material (see claim 11), but does not positively recite that the solid lubricant contains a wax, fluorine based additive or graphite. So, Abe et al. discloses a solid lubricant powder that could only consist of talc and the rust preventive. In this circumstance, the values for Cw, Cf and Cg are all 0 values and the numerator of the equation would be 0, and 0/Cmg is ≤ .28.
In regard to claim 2, wherein: the pin contact surface further includes a pin sealing surface 42 and a pin shoulder surface 43, and
the box contact surface further includes a box sealing surface 52 and a box shoulder surface 53.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Goto and Abe et al. fail to disclose one of the groups consisting of Ti02, wax, fluorine-based additive, graphite, or rust preventative or color pigment. The Examiner disagrees, as Goto and Abe et al. disclose a rust preventive pigment, as described in further detail above. Therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
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