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 filing dated 2/25/25 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments have resolved the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections from the preceding action.
Without conceding applicant’s arguments concerning the teachings of Saprykin’s manipulator, the examiner notes that a new rejection is presented below. The features concerning the manipulator are taught by McKenzie and applicant’s argument on this feature are rendered moot.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on the combination of Saprykin (RU 2470130 C2), in view of McKenzie (US 20200040674 A1), applicant argues: “The equipment of Saprykin can be precisely positioned without restriction, as ample room is available to align the components as needed. There is no motivation for the skilled person to modify Saprykin with McKenzie. The claimed invention has identified a technical problem not disclosed or suggested in either of Saprykin or McKenzie, namely the difficulties of working in confined spaces.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The benefits of modifying with McKenzie have been articulated in the rejection below (i.e. “it provides for “safer, more precise, and more efficient pipe handling operations” (Para 0042).”). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), MPEP 2144(IV).
It is noted that the teachings of McKenzie provide an explicit and clear benefit for the incorporation of McKenzie’s teaching into Saprykin. As expressed in MPEP 2144(II), “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are discussed in additional detail in the prior art rejection below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saprykin (RU 2470130 C2), in view of McKenzie (US 20200040674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saprykin teaches a system for handling drill rods comprising:
a rod carrier (Fig 5-6, carrier 6) comprising a cassette body configured for storing at least one drill rod (Fig 5-6, rack 10 with pipes/rods 17), and a rod carrier movement member for moving the rod carrier (Please note 112(f) has been invoked and the corresponding structure is found in e.g. Para 0012, “the at least one movement member may comprise one or more wheels, slides, rollers and the like, or any combination thereof. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the at least one movement member may comprise an endless track”; Fig 5-6, wheels on carrier 6 seen);
a drilling rig (Fig 6-7, rig 1) comprising a mast adapted to receive the drill rod (Fig 6-7, mast seen on rig 1), and a drilling rig movement member for moving the drilling rig (Please note 112(f) has been invoked and the corresponding structure is found in e.g. Para 0012, “the at least one movement member may comprise one or more wheels, slides, rollers and the like, or any combination thereof. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the at least one movement member may comprise an endless track”; Fig 5-6, wheels on rig 1 seen);
wherein the rod carrier and the drilling rig are each independently movable towards and away from one another during a rod handling process by their respective movement members (Second page, last paragraph of translation to third page, first paragraph, guides of carrier are adjustable “to change the distance between the pipe block and the drilling rig”).
While Saprykin teaches a manipulator (Fig 6-7, manipulator 2) and a retrieval position on-board the rod carrier (Page 2, pargraph 10, Fig 6-7, guide position on the rod carrier), Saprykin is not explicit on a chassis and the recited particulars of the manipulator and control unit.
McKenzie teaches a chassis (Fig 1, frame/base generically indicated at 102/105) and
a manipulator (Fig 1, manipulator 116a) including a gripper adapted to grip the drill rod (Fig 4B, end effector 132 grips rod 110), the manipulator configured to move the drill of from a retrieval position on-board the rod carrier (Note that this is a modification to Saprykin and the drill rod is located on the rod carrier, manipulator 116a retrieves rods 110 from its storage location, see Para 0092) to the mast of the drill rig (see movement from Fig 17-18, moved to mast, see also Fig 4A-4B, Fig 9B-9E and the “configuration” required to move the rod to the mast), the manipulator adapted for movement relative to the chassis of the drilling rig along a track located on a surface of the chassis (see Fig 1, 4B, Para 0052, manipulator 116a moves along at track 124 on the surface of the chassis identified 102/105; Para 0092, “Depending on a particular pipe stand storage location on the first side 150, the base portion 122 may slide along the track 124”); and
at least one control unit (Fig 11, controller 402/404, see also Paras 0087-0089) configured to:
determine a location of the drill rod on-board the rod carrier relative to the chassis of the drilling rig (the drill rod is located on the rod carrier, manipulator 116a retrieves rods 110 from its storage location, see Para 0092, see also Para 0082 at least 422 to identify the proximity/location; please note Paras 0087-0089 and 0091-0092 which teaches the automation of the actions and consequently the necessity for corresponding control system configuration and the ability to reach/access the pipe storage. Note that this is a modification to Saprykin and the drill rod is located on the rod carrier),
when the location of the drill rod relative to the chassis is within a range of the manipulator, move the manipulator along the track based on the location of the drill rod relative to the chassis (see movement between Fig 17-18 to Fig 19-20; Para 0092, “Depending on a particular pipe stand storage location on the first side 150, the base portion 122 may slide along the track 124”. Please note Paras 0087-0089 and 0092 which teaches the automation of the actions and consequently the necessity for corresponding control system configuration to perform the action), and
direct handling of the drill rod from the retrieval position on-board the rod carrier to the mast of the drilling rig during the rod handling process (see movement between Fig 17-18 to Fig 19-20; please note Paras 0087-0089 and 0092 which teaches the automation of the actions and consequently the necessity for corresponding control system configuration to perform the action. Note that this is a modification to Saprykin and the drill rod is located on the rod carrier).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Saprykin by having the track to permit movement, structural particulars of the manipulator 116, and the corresponding control system to move along the track as disclosed by McKenzie because it provides for “safer, more precise, and more efficient pipe handling operations” (Para 0042) and fills in the implementing details required to implement the manipulator 2 of Saprykin.
Regarding claim 2, Saprykin as modified teaches wherein the manipulator comprises a robotic arm (Fig 1, 4B, Para 0052, of McKenzie manipulator 116a).
Regarding claim 6, Saprykin teaches wherein the cassette body and the rod carrier are configured such that the drill rod exits the cassette body into at least one drill rod holder associated with the rod carrier (Page 2, paragraph 10, “pipes 17 are moved from the guides 12 by the manipulator 2”/guides 12 are the drill rod holders).
Regarding claim 7, Saprykin teaches wherein the drill rod holder is configured to deliver the drill rod into the retrieval position on-board the rod carrier (Fig 4-6, holder 12 delivers rod into position to be recovered by manipulator 2).
Regarding claim 8, Saprykin teaches wherein the rod carrier is provided with a pair of drill rod holders (Fig 6, at least two guides/holders 12 are seen).
Regarding claim 27, Saprykin teaches wherein the rod carrier further comprises an actuating mechanism (Please note 112(f) has been invoked and the corresponding structure is found in e.g. Para 0075 (“actuating mechanism may comprise a manipulator […] Any suitable manipulator may be provided”; Fig 5-6, manipulator 11 and guide 12) configured to move the drill rod between a first position in the cassette body to the retrieval position (Fig 5-6, manipulator 11 and guide 12).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saprykin (RU 2470130 C2), in view of McKenzie (US 20200040674 A1), further in view of Synder (US 3820612 A).
Regarding claim 24, while Saprykin teaches the movement member are wheels (Figs 4-6), Saprykin is silent on wherein the rod carrier movement member includes an endless track.
Snyder teaches endless tracks provide a vehicle stability in rough and lose terrain (Column 2, lines 25-26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Saprykin by having the rod carrier movement member be an endless track as suggested by Snyder because it would provide the vehicle stability in rough and lose terrain (Column 2, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 25, while Saprykin teaches the movement member are wheels (Figs 4-6), Saprykin is silent on wherein the drilling rig movement member includes an endless track.
Snyder teaches endless tracks provide a vehicle stability in rough and lose terrain (Column 2, lines 25-26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Saprykin by having the drilling rig movement member include an endless track as suggested by Snyder because it would provide the vehicle stability in rough and lose terrain (Column 2, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 26,while Saprykin teaches the movement member are wheels (Figs 4-6), Saprykin is silent on wherein the rod carrier movement member and the drilling rig movement member each includes a respective endless track.
Snyder teaches endless tracks provide a vehicle stability in rough and lose terrain (Column 2, lines 25-26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Saprykin by having the rod carrier movement member and the drilling rig movement member each include a respective endless track as suggested by Snyder because it would provide the vehicle stability in rough and lose terrain (Column 2, lines 25-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676