DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendment dated 3/16/2026 that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination dated 3/16/2026. Claims 1-12 have been canceled. Claim 13 is currently amended. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 13-28 are pending. Claims 17-26 are withdrawn in light of the election of Species I on 10/8/2024.
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, see the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103 section on pages 5-7 of the response dated 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-16 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France (US 20090260695) in view of Bespalov (US 20140102721) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the amendments to claim 13 overcomes the rejection of record as provided in the Office action dated 9/17/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly applied reference to Smith et al. (US 3791447) and a new interpretation of Bespalov (US 20140102721).
It is considered that Smith et al. (US 3791447) addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to a support structure (20) supporting a tube (18) from underneath such that the tube (18) is arranged on the support structure and the support structure is arranged to support the tube (18) inclined from horizontal.
Further, it is considered that a new interpretation of Bespalov et al. (US 20140102721) addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the annular BOP valve at the first end of the robot-launching tube.
The Bespalov et al. reference teaches a cable injector including a tube (see “tube” in the annotated figure 5B below) wherein the tube includes a ram-type BOP valve (38) at one end and an annular BOP valve (265) at a first end of the tube such that the annular BOP valve is configured to restrict ascending flow (see paragraph [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1168
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is considered that the narrowing of the area in the Bespalov et al. reference that is considered the “tube” (see the annotated figure 5B above) addresses the claim language relating to the annular BOP valve (265) at the first end of the robot-launching tube.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination, the instant Office action is made non-final.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-16 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (US 20090260695) in view of Bespalov et al. (US 20140102721) and in view of Smith et al. (US 3791447).
Regarding claim 13, the France et al. reference discloses a system for launching equipment, comprising:
a launching tube (see “tube” in the annotated figure 3 below);
a support structure (9, 10) supporting the tube from underneath (see figure 3), the support structure arranged to support the tube inclined from horizontal;
a dynamic seal (19 at a first end of the tube and sealed over an umbilical cable (20);
a ram-type blowout preventer valve (13; the shear seal 13 is similar to a blow out preventer (see paragraph [0024]) at a second end of the tube configured to restrict the ascending flow and having an opening that is sufficient to allow passage of an object (see paragraph [0043]), wherein the ram-type BOP valve is sealed over the umbilical cable (it is considered that the ram-type BOP valve 13 prevents a fluid from inside the tube to outside the tube when the cable 20 is provided through the tube and ram-type BOP valve).
PNG
media_image2.png
749
1289
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Firstly, the France et al. reference does not disclose an annular BOP valve at the first end of the robot-launching tube and configured to restrict ascending flow.
However, the Bespalov et al. reference teaches a cable injector including a tube (see “tube” in the annotated figure 5B below) wherein the tube includes a ram-type BOP valve (38) at one end and an annular BOP valve (265) at a first end of the tube such that the annular BOP valve is configured to restrict ascending flow (see paragraph [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1168
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of the France et al. reference with an annular BOP valve at the first end of the robot-launching tube as taught by the Bespalov et al. reference in order to provide an additional sealing arrangement to restrict a fluid flow through the tube so that leakages are reduced.
Secondly, the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference and the Bespalov et al. reference does not disclose wherein the support structure is arranged such that the robot-launching tube is arranged on the support structure.
However, the Smith et al. reference teaches an arrangement for guiding a pipe (33) into a tube (18) wherein the tube (18) is supported by a support structure (20) such that the tube (18) is arranged on the support structure (see figure 1) and the support structure (20) is arranged to support the tube (18) inclined from horizontal (see figure 1) wherein the support structure (20) provides support for the tube (18) on the ground (col. 2, lines 30-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the support structure of the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference and the Bespalov et al. reference as having a robust support structure such that the robot-launching tube is arranged on the support structure as taught by the Smith et al. reference in order to provide additional support of the robot-launching tube on the ground.
In regards to claim 14, the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference, the Bespalov et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference discloses wherein the dynamic seal (France et al.: 19) is detachable (it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to remove/detach the components at least when disassembling the system).
In regards to claim 15, the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference, the Bespalov et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference discloses wherein the dynamic seal (France et al.: 19) is detachable by disassembly (it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to remove/detach the components at least when disassembling the system).
In regards to claim 16, the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference, the Bespalov et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference discloses wherein the dynamic seal (France et al.: 19) is detachable by opening to introduce the robot or connection of the umbilical cable (France et al.: 20) (France et al.: it is considered that the cable 20 is able to be introduced through the dynamic seal 19 into the tube; further, it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to remove/detach the components at least when disassembling the system).
In regards to claim 27, the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference, the Bespalov et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference discloses wherein the object to connected to the umbilical cable (France et al.: 20) is configured to be into a pipeline (France et al.: 4); and
the umbilical cable (France et al.: 20) extends from the object through the dynamic seal (France et al.: 19).
It is considered that the recitation of “configured to be inserted into a production well” is a recitation of the intended use of the robot / object.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, it is considered that the object attached to the umbilical cable (France et al.: 20) is capable of being inserted into a production well.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France et al. (US 20090260695) in view of Bespalov et al. (US 20140102721) in view of Smith et al. (US 3791447) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kozisek (US 5769955).
In regards to claim 28, the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference, the Bespalov et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference does not disclose a storage and control module that stores the robot-launching tube and the support structure.
However, the Kozisek reference teaches a portable system for launching/catching pipeline pigs having a storage and control module (10) that stores a launching tube (11) and a support structure (24) in order to permit the use of a launcher to be moved between a plurality of sites (col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of the France et al. reference of the combination of the France et al. reference, the Bespalov et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference with a storage and control module that stores the robot-launching tube and the support structure as taught by the Kozisek reference in order to permit the use of the system to be moved between a plurality of sites.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights