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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Head (U.S. 7,114,970B2) fails to teach that male electrical contact 311 extends in the axial direction, but rather extends in the radial direction.
This argument is not persuasive because Head, as shown in fig. 14, depicts male electrical contact 311 as a ring-shaped conductive contact having measurable extent along the longitudinal/axial axis of the tubular component, in addition to any radial extent. A structure can simultaneously have both an axial width and a radial thickness. The claim only requires that the contact surface possess a with in the axial direction, not that it extend exclusively or primarily in that direction. As depicted in fig. 14, 311 has axial extend that is different from (larger or smaller that) the axial extend of element 331, satisfying the claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that 311 and 331 do not contact each other, and that the contact instead occurs via 341. This argument is not persuasive. Head disclose that conductive ring 311 and conductive 4ring 331 are arranged in the made-up configuration such that their respective contact surfaces are placed in electrical communication when the connection us made up. To the extent spring 341 is present as an additional/intermediate biasing or continuity element, its presence does not preclude a finding that surfaces of 311 and 331 also meet the claim, since the claim does not exclude the presence of additional conductive or biasing structures between the two contact surfaces.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim q is obvious over Head in view of Atyam et al. (WO 2022/094144).
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “millimetres” should read -- millimeters --. This also applies to claims 12, 13, and 28.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-17, 21-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Head (U.S. 7,114,970B2), in view of Atyam et al. (WO 2022/094144).
Regarding claim 1, Head discloses a threaded connection (see fig. 1. Note that examiner is making the rejection based on the fig. 14 which shows when the conductive rings are engaged in the make-up configuration. Fig. 14 also shows a closer view of the conductive rings) comprising:
first (10) and second tubular (12) components (see fig. 1), wherein the first tubular component (10) comprises: at a first end region a pin with an outer surface on which is formed a male thread (14); and an opposite second end region (as shown in fig. 1), the second tubular component (12) comprises: at a first end region a box with an inner surface on which is formed a female thread (16); and an opposite second end region (see fig. 1), and the male thread (14) is arranged to engage the female thread (16) in a made-up configuration (see figs. 2 and 14);
a male electrical contact (311, fig. 14; also refer to col. 9, lines 40-43) on the outer surface of the first end region of the first tubular component (10; see figs. 1 and 14) and insulated from the first tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; refer to col. 9, line 24);
a female electrical contact (331; fig. 14 and refer to col. 10, lines 30-35) on the inner surface of the first end region of the second tubular component (12; see figs. 1-2 and 14) and insulated from the second tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; refer to col. 9, line 24);
a first conductor (318, fig. 14 or 21, fig. 1) extending along the first tubular component (10), in communication with the male electrical contact (311), and insulated from the first tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; see fig. 14 and refer to col. 9, line 24); and
a second conductor (317, fig. 14 or 41, fig. 1) extending along the second tubular component (12), in communication with the female electrical contact (331; see fig. 14), and insulated from the second tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; see fig. 14 and refer to col. 9, line 24), wherein the male and female electrical contacts (311, 331) comprise contact surfaces (the two surfaces touching each other in fig. 14) which are arranged to contact with each other in the made-up configuration (as shown in fig. 14), wherein the contact surface of the male electrical contact (311) has a width in an axial direction of the first tubular component (as shown in fig. 14) and the contact surface of the female electrical contact (331) has a width in an axial direction of the second tubular component (as shown in fig. 14), wherein the width of the female electrical contact surface is smaller than the width of the male electrical contact surface, or vice versa (the width of the male contact surface 311 is small than the width of the female contact surface 331).
However, Head fails to teach that the first conductor extending along the outer surface of the first tubular component.
Atyam et al. teaches a threaded connection with a wire connection (para 045), wherein the threaded connection comprises a tubular with a groove (1904, fig. 19 and para 085) on its outer surface and an electrical conductor (1906) surrounded by an electrical insulator (320) is inserted into the groove (fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the internal conductor passage for a groove on an outer surface of the first tubular component, as taught by Titomic, for the predictable result of running the first conductor along the first tubular component.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein respective contact surfaces of the male and female electrical contacts (311, 331) are arranged to contact with each other in the made-up configuration (see figs. 2 and 14), and the width of the male electrical contact is a width of the male contact surface and the width of the female electrical contact is a width of the female contact surface (as shown in fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein the male electrical contact or the female electrical contact (311, 331) is substantially flat in the axial direction in axial cross-section (as shown in fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein: the male thread is located between the male electrical contact and a terminal end of the first end region of the first tubular component (as shown in fig. 1); or the female electrical contact is located between the female thread and a terminal end of the first end region of the second tubular component (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein: the male electrical contact extends circumferentially around the outer surface; or the female electrical contact extends circumferentially around the inner surface (see fig. 9 and refer to col. 8, lines 11-20 with circumferential electrical contact ring 56).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head, modified by Atyam et al. further discloses wherein: the first tubular component comprises a groove formed on the outer surface and the first conductor extends within the groove (as taught by Atyam et al., see fig. 19 and the rejection of claim 1 above); or the second tubular component comprises a groove formed on the outer surface and the second conductor extends within the groove (as taught by Atyam et al., see fig. 19 and the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 7 above; Atyam et al. further teaches wherein the groove includes a curved surface in cross-section (as taught by Atyam et al., see figs. 19-21).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 8 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. is silent to wherein the groove has a radius of curvature of less than 5 .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove of Head, modified by Atyam et al. such that it has a radius of curvature of less than 5 millimetres since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 7 above; Atyam et al. further teaches a sealing cover (320) attached to the outer surface over the groove (1904; see figs. 19-20).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 7 above; Head, modified by Atyam et al. further discloses wherein the first tubular component comprises a groove (1904; Atyam, fig. 19) formed on the outer surface and the first conductor (1906) extends within the groove (1904) and the groove communicates with a bore underneath a sealing surface of the first tubular component (as shown in fig. 19; also see figs. 1-2 and 14 of Head).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. is silent to wherein the width of the male electrical contact is greater than 3 millimetres.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the male electrical contact of Head, modified by Atyam et al. be greater than 3 millimetres since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. is silent to wherein the width of the male electrical contact is less than 6 millimetres.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the male electrical contact of Head, modified by Atyam et al. be less than 6 millimetres since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. is silent to wherein the male thread has a thread lead or pitch and the width of the male electrical contact is within 25% of the thread lead or pitch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the male thread of Head, modified by Atyam et al. to have a thread lead or pitch and the width of the male electrical contact be within 25% of the thread lead or pitch since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses a plurality of male electrical contacts (311, 312, 313, fig. 14) on the outer surface of the first end region of the first tubular component (10), each insulated from the first tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; refer to col. 9, line 24), the plurality of male electrical contacts (311, 312, 313, fig. 14) having a first circumferential length and spaced from one another by a first circumferential gap (as shown in fig. 14);
a plurality of female electrical contacts on the inner surface of the first end region of the second tubular component (12), each insulated from the second tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; refer to col. 9, line 24), the plurality of female electrical contacts having a second circumferential length and spaced from one another by a second circumferential gap (as shown in fig. 14);
a plurality of first conductors (318) extending along the outer surface of the first tubular component (10), each first conductor in communication with a corresponding male electrical contact of the plurality of male electrical contacts (col. 9, lines 28-30: “three conductors”; col. 9, lines 32-37: “each of the inwardly extending portions 316 clamps on the end of a respective annular conductors 318”), and each insulated from the first tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; refer to col. 9, line 24); and
a plurality of second conductors (317) extending along the second tubular component (12), each second conductor in communication with a corresponding female electrical contact of the plurality of female electrical contacts (col. 10, lines 30-36: “connected by conductive lines 317”), and each insulated from the second tubular component (insulated via insulating material 315; refer to col. 9, line 24), wherein: the first circumferential length is smaller than the second circumferential gap (as shown in fig. 14); and the second circumferential length is smaller than the first circumferential gap (as shown in fig. 14).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein the male electrical contact (311) forms at least part of an interference seal of the first tubular component (as defined by seals 303, 345, 346, 301).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein the female electrical contact is at least partially insulated from the second tubular component by an elastomeric seal (59; refer to col. 4, lines 45-48) for sealing with the pin (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein the pin comprises an annular sealing surface for sealing by interference with a complementary annular sealing surface of the box (as shown in figs. 2 ad 14), the annular sealing surface of the pin being located between the male thread and a terminal end of the first tubular component (see fig. 2 and 14).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses wherein the first tubular component is a first casing or tubing tubular component and the second tubular component is a second casing or tubing tubular component (the first and second tubular component are sections of a drill string; refer to col. 1, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Head further discloses string for a well bore (the first and second tubular component are sections of a drill string; refer to col. 1, lines 44-47), comprising: a plurality of threaded connections according to claim 1(refer to col. 5, lines 8-10) in threaded engagement to form the string such that the first and second conductors collectively form a conductive path (as shown in fig. 2); and
one or more sensors, positioned along the string, in communication with the conductive path (col. 1, lines 12-15: the sensors are the instruments gathering data that is transmitted by the electrical conductors along the drill pipe during drilling such as MWD OR LWD tools).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 23 above; Head further discloses wherein the conductive path is for transmission of power to the one or more sensors and signals from the one or more sensors (refer to col. 1, lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 23 above; Head further discloses wherein the string is a casing string or a tubing string, and each tubular component is a casing or tubing tubular component (see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 8 above; Head, modified by Atyam et al. further discloses wherein the groove is U-shaped (as taught by Atyam et al., see figs. 19-21 and the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 9 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. is silent to wherein the groove has a radius of curvature between 1 millimetre to 2 millimetres.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the groove of Head, modified by Atyam et al. such that it has a radius of curvature between 1 millimetre to 2 millimetres since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 2, 19, and 20/1, 20/3-20/17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Head (U.S. 7,114,970B2), in view of Atyam et al. (WO 2022/094144) as applied to claims 1, 3-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Reynolds, JR. (U.S. 2006/0108803A1).
Regarding claims 2, 19, and 20/1, 20/3-20/17 the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claims 1, 3-17, and 19 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. fail to teach that the threaded connection is non-shouldered, the male thread and female thread comprise wedge threads, or are wedge threads. and the made-up configuration is an indeterminate make-up.
Reynolds, JR. teaches tubulars for transmitting data in a wellbore and threaded connections having electrical contractors embedded therein (refer to abstract). The threaded connection comprises wedge threads (refer to para 0034). Reynolds, JR. further teach that it is known to use wedge threads on connections which do not have positive stop torque shoulders/ non-shouldered connections and the make-up is indeterminate (refer to para 0044). The indeterminate make-up connection compensate for wear of electrical conductors/contacts (refer to para 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic threads of Head with wedge threads, as taught by Reynolds, JR. for the purpose of transmitting high forces during threaded connection due to its shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threaded connection of Head such that it is non-shouldered and the made-up configuration is an indeterminate make-up, as taught by Reynolds, JR., for the purpose of compensating for wear of the electrical conductors/contacts (refer to para 0062).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Head (U.S. 7,114,970B2), in view of Atyam et al. (WO 2022/094144) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (U.S. 2002/0075114A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Head and Atyam et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 23 above; however, Head, modified by Atyam et al. fail to teach that the one or more sensors comprises one or more of: a temperature sensor; a pressure sensor; an accelerometer; a magnetometer; an ultrasonic sensor; a flow sensor; and an acoustic sensor.
Hall et al. teach a system for transmitting data through a drill string comprises threaded connections (refer to abstract), wherein the string comprises a pin and box end threaded together (fig. 18) and electrical conductors (191) passing therethrough (see fig. 18, 18A), wherein the electrical conductors are connected with sensors such as accelerometer (195, fig. 18 and para 0097) mearing bit vibration (refer to para 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drilling system of Head to include an accelerometer connected to the electrical conductors, as taught by Hall, for mearing bit vibration (refer to para 0097).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 29 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boyle (U.S. 2002/0193004A1) and W.J. Crites (U.S. 2,178,931).
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 YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights