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
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) 1-5, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Klementich (US 5360239 A), hereinafter Em.
With respect to claim 1, Em discloses obtaining annular couplings with threaded lengths (shown in figs. 2, 14), and where designated portions of the threaded lengths have each passed an inspection (col. 8 l. 58 – col. 9 l. 22); forming a tubular string by threadingly engaging the threaded lengths of the couplings with threaded ends of tubular members (shown in figs. 2, 14); and inserting the tubular string into the wellbore (shown in fig. 14).
With respect to claim 2, Em discloses wherein the threaded lengths each comprise a thread formed on an inner surface of the annular coupling (19), the inspection comprises comparing a diameter of the thread with a specified diameter of the thread (col. 8 l. 58 – col. 9 l. 22).
With respect to claim 3, Em discloses wherein the threaded lengths comprise first threaded lengths, wherein the designated portions comprise first designated portions, wherein second threaded lengths with second designated portions are on threaded ends of the tubular members, and wherein the second designated portions have each passed the inspection (col. 21 ll. 27-50, col. 8 l. 58 – col. 9 l. 22, figs. 7e, 7f).
With respect to claim 4, Em discloses wherein the threaded lengths comprise first threaded lengths, wherein the designated portions comprise first designated portions, wherein second threaded lengths with second designated portions are on threaded ends of the tubular members, and wherein the first and second designated portions are in threaded engagement with one another when the tubular string is formed (col. 21 ll. 27-50, col. 8 l. 58 – col. 9 l. 22, figs. 7e, 7f).
With respect to claim 5, Em discloses wherein the threads on the designated portions are fully crested threads (shown in figs. 8, 12a, 12b, figs. 7e, 7f).
With respect to claim 11, Em discloses wherein the designated portion coincides with a portion of the thread length where a pressure barrier is formed in an interface between threads on the coupling and threads on the pin (col. 21 ll. 27-50, figs. 7e, 7f).
The limitations of claims 12-15 and 18 are substantially similar to those of claims 1-5 and 11, rejected supra.
With respect to claim 19, Em discloses wherein the designated portion of the thread length is proximate a centerline of the coupling (shown in figs. 2, 7e, 7f).
With respect to claim 20, Em discloses wherein the designated specification comprises API Specification 5CT (col. 13 ll. 25-40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Em in light of Hayakawa (US 20240209695 A1), hereinafter Ha.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Em fails to disclose the relative torque values claimed.
Nevertheless, Ha discloses wherein each of the couplings (4) comprises a mill end (8) and a field end (7), and wherein the step of forming the tubular string comprises applying a first torque to mount the mill end of a one of the couplings with a mill end of a one of the tubular members, applying a second torque to mount the field end of the coupling with a field end of another one of the tubular members, wherein the first torque exceeds the second torque (pgph. 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used more torque to tighten the mill end of the coupling with the tubular than the field end in Em as taught by Ha in order to prevent to first tubular from being unscrewed from the coupling during coupling of the second tubular as taught by Ha (pgph. 38).
With respect to claim 7, Ha further discloses wherein an interference between threads on the mill end of the coupling and mill end of a one of the tubulars exceeds an interference between threads on the field end of coupling and the field end of the another one of the tubular members (pgph. 38).
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Ha further discloses wherein portions of the tubular members within the couplings interface one another at an axial location that is offset from an axial midpoint of the coupling (shown in figs. 1, 2, interfacing at areas 13/15 which is spaced from centerline near 18 in fig. 2, also obviously applicable to Em), and is between an axial centerline of the coupling and the field end (pgph. 51, where the surface 14 is on mill end 6 of tubular 3 and lip 16 is on field end 5 of tubular 2, interface indicated by numerals 13 and 15 in fig. 2 will be to the left, or towards the field end, of the centerline generally indicated by numeral 18 in fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Em in light of Carstensen (US 8496273 B1), hereinafter Car.
With respect to claim 8, Em fails to disclose the relative viscosities of the compounds as claimed.
Nevertheless, Car discloses applying a first pipe compound (lubelock sealant, which cures/hardens, col. 6 ll. 26-50) to the threads on the mill end of the coupling and applying a second pipe compound (API modified thread lubricant, col. 7 ll. 10-25) to the threads on the field end of the coupling, wherein a viscosity of the first pipe compound exceeds a viscosity of the second pipe compound (since the first compound cures/hardens, it will have a higher viscosity than the non-curing second compound)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the compounds of Car with the relative viscosities claimed on the corresponding ends of the couplings of Em in order to ensure that a field end on the upper side of the coupling will break out when tripping out of the wellbore as taught by Car (col. 6 ll. 25-50).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Em in light of Tejada (US 10107424 B1).
With respect to claim 8, Em fails to disclose the relative tapers claimed.
Nevertheless, Tejada discloses wherein a taper of the threads on the mill end of the coupling differs from a taper of the threads on the mill end of a one of the tubulars, and wherein a taper of the threads on the field end of coupling is different from a taper of threads on the field end of the another one of the tubular members (col. 4 ll. 5-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the taper differences between the coupling and pin of Tejada for the coupling and pins of Em on both ends in order to reduce hoop stress and interference and thereby reduce couplings splitting as well as increase sealing capability as taught by Tejada (col. 6 ll. 20-45, col. 1 ll. 60-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8052173 B2 discloses multiple coatings on threads which could be applied to reject different viscosities for pipe compounds. US 20050242583 A1 discloses a coupling in fig. 6 which places the contact point away from a centerline.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights