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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dearden et al. 4,673,201.
In regard to claim 1, Dearden et al. discloses a threaded pipe connection comprising:
a tubular coupling 1 with first 3 and second 5 female threaded zones formed in opposing sections; and
first and second pipes 2a, 2b, each comprising a male threaded zone and a shoulder surface 9a, 9b at its terminal end, wherein each female threaded zone extends from an inner end to an outer end, wherein the inner end of each threaded zone is the end nearest a center of the tubular coupling; and
includes a female thread that tapers radially within the female threaded zone from a maximum diameter at the outer end of the female threaded zone, wherein each male threaded zone includes a male thread that tapers radially so as to reduce in diameter towards the terminal end of the pipe, wherein the threaded pipe connection is configured to enable the first and second pipes to be engaged with the tubular coupling in a made-up configuration in which:
the shoulder surfaces 9a, 9b of the first and second pipes abut (see fig. 4);
the entire male threaded zone of the first pipe engages the entire first female threaded zone (see fig. 1);
the entire male threaded zone of the second pipe engages the entire second female threaded zone (see fig. 1); and for each of the first and second female threaded zones;
the a crest 20 of one of the male and female threads radially interferes with the a root 21 of the other of the male and female threads in a first portion of the female threaded zone and does not interfere (at 22 and 23 and also at the triangular inner most pin thread and root of 11a) or interferes by a smaller amount in a second portion of the female threaded zone; and
the second portion (at 22 and 23 and also at the triangular inner most pin thread and root of 11a) is located at the inner end 10 of the female threaded zone.
In regard to claim 2, wherein in the made-up configuration in each of the first and second female threaded zones the crest of the one of the male and female threads is free from radial interference with the root of the other of the male and female threads in the second portion of the female threaded zone (at 22 and 23 and also at the triangular inner most pin thread and root of 11a).
In regard to claim 3, wherein in the second portion:
there is no interference and, optionally, a clearance between the crest of the male thread and the root of the female thread (at 22 and 23 and also at the triangular inner most pin thread and root of 11a).
In regard to claim 4, wherein in the made-up configuration in each of the first and second female threaded zones there is a clearance between the root of the one of the male and female threads and the crest of the other of the male and female threads (at 22 and 23 and also at the triangular inner most pin thread and root of 11a).
In regard to claim 10, wherein the tubular coupling does 1 not comprise a shoulder surface between the first (20, 21) and second (at 22 and 23 and also at the triangular inner most pin thread and root of 11a) female threaded zones.
In regard to claim 11, wherein in the made-up configuration the first and second pipes are free from contact with the tubular coupling between the male threaded zones of the first and second pipes.
In regard to claim 12, wherein in the made-up configuration the first and second pipes only contact the tubular coupling via threaded engagement (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 17, wherein the crests and roots of the male threads are parallel to the a longitudinal axis of the pipes, and the crests and roots of the female threads are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular coupling (see the crests and roots in figs. 3 and 4).
In regard to claim 18, wherein the radially outer edge 9bb (see fig. 3) of the shoulder surface at the ends of the pipes is beveled.
In regard to claim 19, wherein a bevel (shape of shape 6 where 26 meets 22 in fig. 7) is provided on the male and/or female threads where the crest meets the a stabbing flank.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reusser 4,384,737.
In regard to claim 20, Reusser discloses a method of manufacturing a tubular coupling for a threaded pipe connection, comprising:
providing a tubular coupling 10 having first and second tapered threaded zones with adjacent inner end portions (portions 54 are both adjacent the center portion), wherein each tapered threaded zone extends from the inner end 54 to an outer end 56,
wherein the inner end 54 of each threaded zone is the end nearest the a center of the tubular coupling; and
reducing the a height of the threads of the adjacent inner end portions of each the first and second tapered threaded zones (see portion 54 in fig. 2 where the height of threads decrease as they approach the center of the coupling 10), by cutting a cylindrical surface 36 into the threads of the adjacent inner end portions (see col. 3, line 12, where it states that the members are machined).
In regard to claim 21, wherein providing the tubular coupling having the first and second tapered threaded zones with adjacent inner end portion portions comprises:
Providing a tubular body; and
cutting threads 34 into the an internal surface of a tubular body to form first (52, 56) and second (54) tapered threaded zones (see col. 3, line 12, where it states that the members are machined).
In regard to claim 23, further comprising engaging first and second pipes with the tubular coupling to thereby provide the threaded pipe connection (see figs. 3-5).
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) 1, 4-7, 12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusser 4,384,737 in view of DeHart 2018/0356014.
In regard to claim 1, Reusser discloses a threaded pipe connection comprising:
a tubular coupling 10 with first and second female threaded zones 20 formed in opposing sections; and
first and second pipes 12 each comprising a male threaded zone and a shoulder surface 60 at its terminal end, wherein each female threaded zone extends from an inner end to an outer end, wherein the inner end of each threaded zone is the end nearest a center of the tubular coupling; and
includes a female thread that tapers radially within the female threaded zone from a maximum diameter at the outer end of the female threaded zone (see fig. 2), wherein each male threaded zone includes a male thread that tapers radially so as to reduce in diameter towards the terminal end of the pipe, wherein the threaded pipe connection is configured to enable the first and second pipes to be engaged with the tubular coupling in a made-up configuration in which:
the entire male threaded zone of the first pipe engages the entire first female threaded zone (see fig. 2);
the entire male threaded zone of the second pipe engages the entire second female threaded zone (see fig. 1); and for each of the first and second female threaded zones;
the a crest 34 of one of the male and female threads radially interferes with the a root 28 of the other of the male and female threads in a first portion of the female threaded zone and does not interfere (at 26 and 36) or interferes by a smaller amount in a second portion of the female threaded zone; and
the second portion is located at the inner end 10 of the female threaded zone (additionally, zone 54 has less of an interference than zones 52 and 56, see col. 7, last line- col. 8, line 4).
Reusser discloses a coupling 10 with a shoulder 58 instead of allowing the shoulder surfaces of the male members to abut. However, DeHart teaches that providing a similar type of coupling (184 in fig. 8) where the shoulder surfaces of the male members are allowed to abut each other or a shoulder 206 of the coupling 204 (see fig. 11) are common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupling of Reusser to not include a central shoulder 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 5, wherein the an axial length of the second portion 54 of the female threaded zone is at least 4 turns (see fig. 2 of Reusser).
In regard to claim 6, wherein the first portion is a complete portion in which the a height of the female thread is constant (the thread height in portion 52 is constant); and
the second portion 54 is an incomplete portion in which the height of the female thread is less than in the complete portion (see fig. 2).
In regard to claim 7, wherein the crest 34 of the female thread throughout the complete portion of the female threaded zone is arranged to contact the root 28 of the male thread of a male threaded zone (see fig. 4).
In regard to claims 14-16, Reusser in view of DeHart do not disclose the exact thread height or shoulder radial thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the thread heights and shoulder thickness of Reusser in view of DeHart with the values recited by the Applicant 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), and 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Dearden et al., Applicant argues that Dearden fails to disclose a crest surface of one member interfering with an opposing root surface by a first amount in a first portion and does not interfere or interferes by a second amount in a second portion closer to the center of the female member.
The Examiner disagrees, as Dearden et al. discloses an interference fit at surfaces 20, 21 in fig. 7 and also discloses a partial crest (triangular male thread at the end of the pin members 2a or 2b) that does not have an interference fit with the thread of the corresponding roots of the box member (see fig. 6), which is located at the inner most end of the female threaded zone. Therefore the Dearden et al. prior art rejection has been maintained.
In regard to the rejection of Reusser in view of DeHart, Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 fails to explain how Reusser discloses that the interference between the crests and roots is smaller in an inner portion of the female threaded zone. The Examiner disagrees, as the rejection references col. 7, last line to col. 8, line 4 of Reusser, which states that interference fit is minimized in region 54 and that increased interference occurs in regions 52 and 56. Looking at fig. 2 of Reusser, it can bee seen that region 54 is at an inner most end of the threaded section of the female member 10.
Applicant agrees that Reusser discloses an interference fit between the male roots and the female crests, but argues that Reusser does not disclose an interference fit between the female roots and the male crest. However, claim 1 only requires a crest of one of the male and female threads radially interferes with a root of the other of the male and female threads, which Reusser discloses.
Applicant argues that Reusser fails to specifically state if the reduction in interference is between the root and crest surfaces or between the male trailing flanks and the female leading flanks. However, it is the Examiner’s position that because Reusser discloses that the interference fit is minimized and does not state that it is only minimized between the trailing and leading flanks or the crests and roots, and applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the reference, it is reasonable to assume that the reduction in interference occurs at all mating surfaces.
Regarding DeHart, Applicant argues that modify the connection of Reusser to allow the shoulders to abut, as taught by DeHart, would result in worse sealing performance and be more prone to damage. The Examiner disagrees, as the modification taught be DeHart would also allow for the same sealing performance and positive stop characteristics whether the nose ends contact each other or a shoulder of the box. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
The arguments against Barringer et al. in view of DeHart were persuasive and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
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