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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first and second curvilinear sealing surfaces are toroidal where such interference occurs” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the examiner agrees that fig. 7C shows the region of interference, the drawings do not show the region comprising toroidal sealing surfaces. 37 CFR 1.83(a) states that all claimed subject matter must be shown in the drawings, and therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Martin (US 2018/0283109).
In regards to claim 1, Martin discloses a sealing system comprising:
a first tubular member (2) having a first thread set (8) and a first curvilinear sealing
surface (12); and
a second tubular member (3) having a second thread set (9) and a second curvilinear
sealing surface(13); wherein:
the first tubular member and the second tubular member are configured to connect when
the first thread set engages with the second thread set (shown in fig. 1);
the first and second curvilinear sealing surfaces are configured to interfere at an
interference region when the first and second tubular members connect (shown in fig. 1);
both the first and second curvilinear sealing surfaces are toroidal where such interference
occurs (see paragraph [0095]).
In regards to claim 2, Martin further discloses a first relief recess (16) disposed on the first tubular member between the first thread set and the first curvilinear sealing surface.
In regards to claim 3, Martin further discloses a second relief recess (16) disposed on the second tubular member between the second thread set and the second curvilinear sealing
surface.
In regards to claim 5, Martin further discloses the first and second curvilinear sealing
surfaces are symmetrical when the first and second tubular members connect (shown in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 6, Martin further discloses the first and second curvilinear sealing
surfaces are asymmetrical when the first and second tubular members connect (shown in fig. 3
about the longitudinal axis).
In regards to claim 7, Martin further discloses the interference region forms an annular
seal between the first and second tubular members, wherein the sealing system is configured
such that an axis of the annular seal may change without forming discontinuities in the annular
seal (fig. 3 shows this capability).
In regards to claims 8 and 16, Martin further discloses the first tubular member
comprises a pin member including a pin nose (28); and the first curvilinear sealing
surface is located between the first thread set and the pin nose (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claims 9 and 17, Martin further discloses the first curvilinear sealing
surface is the only curvilinear sealing surface disposed on the first tubular member (shown in fig.
1).
In regards to claims 10 and 18, Martin further discloses the first thread set and the
second thread set comprise wedge threads (see fig. 2 and paragraph [0081]).
In regards to claim 11, Martin discloses a method comprising:
moving a first tubular member (2) relative to a second tubular member (3), such that
a pin end of the first tubular member enters and axially overlaps with a box end of the second
tubular member (shown in fig. 1);
rotating the first tubular member relative to the second tubular member, such that a first
threading (8) on the first tubular member engages with a second threading (9) on the second tubular member (shown in fig. 1) and
connecting the first tubular member to the second tubular member, such that a first
curvilinear sealing surface (12) on the first tubular member contacts a second curvilinear
sealing surface (13) on the second tubular member; wherein:
the first and second curvilinear sealing surfaces interfere at an interference region when
the first and second tubular members connect (shown in fig. 1); and
both the first and second curvilinear sealing surfaces are toroidal where such interference
occurs (see paragraph [0095]).
In regards to claim 12, Martin further discloses rotating the first tubular member relative
to the second tubular member comprises displacing lubricant between the pin end and the box
end into a first recess (16) on the first tubular member between the first threading and the first
curvilinear sealing surface (see paragraph [0063]).
In regards to claim 13, Martin further discloses rotating the first tubular member relative
to the second tubular member comprises displacing lubricant between the pin end and the box
end into a second recess (16) on the second tubular member between the second threading and
the second curvilinear sealing surface (see paragraph [0063]).
In regards to claim 14, Martin further discloses the contact force comprises a
compressional force between the first and second curvilinear sealing surfaces (shown in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 15, Martin further discloses the contact force comprises a radial force extending along an annular dimension between the first and second tubular members to form an annular seal (shown in fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin as applied to
claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 4, Martin discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses the
sealing surfaces comprising a curve radius of between 1 to 30 mm (.039 to 1.18 inches) and 1 to 15 mm (.039 to .59 inches), respectively. Martin does disclose the radius being .5 to 50 inches. However, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, while Martin does not expressly disclose the curve radius being 5 to 50 inches;
the curve radius may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the
engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use
and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Martin to have the curve radius be .5 to 50 inches, as the curve radius may be
optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A
person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable
expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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 D. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights