DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 5, filed March 23, 2026 , with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claims 12-13 have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive:
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 10 to remove the term “outer frame” resolves the indefiniteness concern identified in Claim 12 in paragraph 9a) of the December 22, 2025 Office Action.
However, the amendment to Claim 10 does not completely resolve the indefiniteness concern identified in Claim 13 in paragraph 9b) of the December 22, 2025 Office Action because Claim 13 still recites “an inner frame” while Claim 10 first introduced this term. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claim 13 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed March 23, 2026 , with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1-3, 10-15, and 17-23 have been fully considered but are not persuasive:
Applicant has amended independent Claims 1 and 10 to recite that the “tubular delivery catwalk system is “adjacent to and coupled to the casing feed and bucking skid system and configured to raise the combined drilling tubular sections from the adjacent casing feed and bucking system”. Applicant argues that Folk uses pins located on the loading portion of the tubular catwalk system that can be selectively raised and lowered to prevent and allow the movement of a tubular pipe from a transfer rack to the loading portion, and therefore, teaches a “completely unrelated configuration to move tubular pipe segments” that does not “raise” the tubular sections (see Applicant’s Response, pages 5-6). While the Examiner does not agree that a system that uses pins and gravity to allow/prevent movement of tubular sections is “completely unrelated” to the system described in the present Application that allows/prevents the movement of the tubular segments (i.e., loading arms (502, Figs. 13-14, [0049]-[0050]) coupled to the catwalk system (102) that are lowered to extend below a rack and lift a tubular segment (1302) from the rack (Fig. 14), and then continuing to raise the loading arm until gravity allows it roll into the center trough on the catwalk system ([0050]) because both use gravity at least perform the same function to achieve the same result, the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1-3, 10-15, and 17-23 is maintained because the previously cited Dore reference teaches this newly added limitation, as described below. In addition, because Applicant has amended independent Claims 1 and 10 to remove the “tiering rack system”, Claims 1-3, 10-14, 17, and 19-22 and 10 are now rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) using Dore.
Because Applicant relies on the arguments addressed to independent Claims 1 and 10, and did not provide any arguments addressed to the rejection of Claims 7 and 16, this rejection is also maintained using the modified rejection of Claims 1 and 10.
Applicant did not address the Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection of Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-24 based on Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,434,705, indicating that the requested Terminal Disclaimer will be submitted when an indication of allowable subject matter is received. This rejection cannot be held in abeyance, and is therefore, maintained, as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites, “The method of claim 10 further comprising configuring an outer frame to support an inner frame and to extend the inner frame from the outer frame.” However, Claim 10 recites “configuring a tubular delivery catwalk system adjacent to and coupled to the casing feed and bucking skid system and having an inner frame to raise the combined drilling tubular sections from the casing feed and bucking skid system, to extend the inner frame and to transport the combined drilling tubular sections to a drilling rig by elevating the combined tubular sections on at least two elevating supports.” It is unclear as to whether the “an inner frame” recited in Claim 13 is the same or a different structure from the “inner frame” as recited in Claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-14, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dore US 10,060,203.
With regard to Claim 1, Dore discloses a system for assembling drilling tubulars (100, Figs. 1-4, C1, L66 – C10, L19), comprising:
a casing feed and bucking skid system (120, Figs. 1A-1C, C3, L28-48) configured to receive an individual drilling tubular section and to combine the individual drilling tubular section with a second individual drilling tubular section (C5, L9-43);
and a tubular delivery catwalk system (110) adjacent to and coupled to the casing feed and bucking skid system (Figs. 1A-1C) and configured to raise the combined drilling tubular sections from the adjacent casing feed and bucking system (C5, L9-43), to telescope a frame structure (111/130, 112) of the tubular delivery catwalk system (110) to extend a length of the tubular delivery catwalk system (111, Fig. 1C) and to transport the combined drilling tubular sections (102) to a drilling rig by elevating the telescoped frame structure on at least two elevating supports (131 left, 131 right, Fig. 1C, C6, L19-51).
With regard to Claim 2, Dore discloses wherein the casing feed and bucking skid system (120) and the tubular delivery catwalk system (110) interoperate to control an interoperation of the casing feed and bucking skid system and the tubular delivery catwalk system (C7, L4-52).
With regard to Claim 3, Dore discloses wherein the casing feed and bucking skid system (120) further comprises an outer frame (150/151, Figs. 2A-2B) configured to support a plurality of elements (121, 122, 125, 126, Figs. 2-3, C7, L53 – C9, L24).
With regard to Claim 19, Dore discloses wherein the system further comprises an inner frame (As applied to the casing feed and bucking system: 123a-b, 124 a-b, Figs. 2-4; As applied to the tubular delivery catwalk system: 111, 130, Figs. 1A -1C).
Note: Claim 19, and similar “frame” limitations in Claims 12-14, 17, and 20-22, do not recite which of the two sub-systems (i.e., the casing feed and bucking skid system and the tubular delivery catwalk system) that comprise the overall “system for assembling drilling tubulars”, with which these recited “frame” structures are associated. As noted by the Board, Claims 16 and 18, which did not specify which of the three sub-systems (as originally presented) a different structure is associated (i.e., loading arms in Claim 16, and a handrail in Claim 18) are not indefinite (see pages 8-9 of the Board decision). As such, Claims 12-14, 17, and 19-22 can be construed (similarly to Claims 16 and 18) such that the recited feature (e.g., “an inner frame” in Claim 19, “an upper outer frame” in Claim 20, etc.) can be associated/located on any of the two sub-systems.
With regard to Claim 20, Dore discloses wherein the system further comprises an upper outer frame (As applied to the casing feed and bucking system: 125, Fig. 3; As applied to the tubular delivery catwalk system: 130, Figs. 1A -1C).
With regard to Claim 21, Dore discloses wherein the system further comprises a lower outer frame (As applied to the casing feed and bucking system: 126, Figs. 2-3; As applied to the tubular delivery catwalk system: 112, Figs. 1A -1C).
With regard to Claim 22, Dore discloses wherein the system further comprises an upper frame (As applied to the casing feed and bucking system: the structures that support the “inner frames” (123a-b, 124a-b) as shown in Figs. 2A-2B; As applied to the tubular delivery catwalk system: 111, Figs. 1A -1C).
With regard to Claim 10, Dore discloses a method for assembling drilling tubulars Figs. 1-4, C1, L66 – C10, L19), comprising:
configuring a casing feed and bucking skid system (120) to receive an individual drilling tubular section and to combine the individual drilling tubular section with a second individual drilling tubular section (C5, L9-43); and
configuring a tubular delivery catwalk system adjacent to and coupled to the casing feed and bucking skid system (Figs. 1A-1C) and having an inner frame (111, 130) to raise the combined drilling tubular sections from the casing feed and bucking skid system (C5, L9-43), to extend the inner frame (111) and to transport the combined drilling tubular sections (102) to a drilling rig by elevating the combined tubular sections on at least two elevating supports (131 left, 131 right, Fig. 1C).
With regard to Claim 11, Dore discloses wherein the casing feed and bucking skid system (120) and the tubular delivery catwalk system (110) interoperate to control an interoperation of the casing feed and bucking skid system and the tubular delivery catwalk system (C7, L4-52).
With regard to Claim 12, Dore discloses that the method further comprises configuring an outer frame to support a plurality of elements (As applied to the casing feed and bucking system: outer frame = 150, 151, Figs. 2A-2B, elements = 121, 122, 125, 126, Figs. 2-3, C7, L53 – C9, L24; As applied to the tubular delivery catwalk system: outer frame = 130, elements = 111, 115, 116, 117, Figs. 1A -1C).
With regard to Claim 13, Dore discloses that the method further comprises configuring an outer frame (130) to support an inner frame (111) and to extend the inner frame from the outer frame (Fig. 1C).
With regard to Claim 14, Dore discloses that the method further comprises extending an upper inner frame (111) from an upper outer frame (130).
With regard to Claim 17, Dore discloses that the method of claim 10 further comprises elevating an upper frame (130, 111) above a lower frame (112, Fig. 1C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 10-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folk, US 10,900,300, in view of Thompson, US 7,404,697, and Dore et al., US 10,060,203.
a) With regard to Claims 1, 3, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-22, Folk discloses a system and method for assembling drilling tubulars (10, Figs. 1- 9, C2, L25 – C9, L31), comprising:
• a casing feed and bucking skid system (60, 70, 80, 120, Figs. 1-3) configured to receive the individual drilling tubular section and to combine the individual drilling tubular section with a second individual drilling tubular section (C3, L64 – C5, L49); and
• a tubular delivery catwalk system (20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36) adjacent to and coupled to the casing feed and bucking skid system (Figs. 1-3) that transports the combined drilling tubular sections to a drilling rig by elevating on at least two elevating supports (32, C2, L66 –C3, L42).
b) Folk fails to teach a “system”, and specifically a “tubular delivery catwalk system” having upper and lower frames, wherein the upper frame is elevated above the lower frame, and inner and outer frames, wherein the inner frame telescopes/extends within the outer frame.
Note: Claims 12-15, 17, and 19-22 recite numerous “frame” structures that are further defined by a spatial modifier that include “upper”, “lower”, “inner”, “outer” and combinations of these terms. However, Claims 12-15, 17, and 19-22 do not specify which of the three sub-systems that comprise the overall system of Claim 1, to which these “frame” structures are associated. However, Claims 1 and 10 were amended to recite an “outer frame” that is specifically associated with the tubular and delivery catwalk system. Claim 1 also recites “a frame structure” that telescopes within the newly added “outer frame” and Claim 10 also recites “an inner frame’ that extends within the outer frame. As such, while the “frame” structures recited in Claims 12-15, 17, and 19-22 are not required to be construed as being associated with tubular delivery catwalk system, the following discussion presumes that these “frame” structures are associated with tubular delivery catwalk system for ease in understanding the rejection. Alternative constructions where these frame structures are associated with a different sub-system are presented later in this discussion.
Thompson discloses a tubular delivery catwalk system (Figs. 1-16, C7, L35 – C21, L9) that includes:
a lower frame (190, 240, 248, Figs. 2-5, C9, L4-18);
an upper frame (200, 300, 400, Figs. 2-5, C7, L35 – C21, L4) that is elevated relative to the lower frame (Figs. 5A-5C);
the upper frame having an upper outer frame (200, Figs. 2A-2B) and a two-part inner frame (300, 400), which is recited as a “frame structure” in Claim 1, and an “inner frame” in Claim 10, wherein the upper inner frame (300, 400) telescopes/extends within an outer frame (200, Fig. 5A) to extend along the length of the catwalk system/outer frame (Figs. 5A) and to transport the combined drilling tubular sections to a drilling rig by elevating the telescoped frame structure or the combined tubular sections that are supported in the inner and outer frames;
the lower frame (190, 240, 248) having a lower outer frame (190, 240, Fig. 4) and a lower inner frame (240, 248), wherein the lower inner frame (248) “extends” from the lower outer frame (as shown from Fig. 4, structure (248) extends above structure (240); and
one or more supports (230, 310, 410, 550, 610, 620) that elevate the upper frame, including both the upper outer frame (200) and the upper inner frame (300, 400) so as to transport the drilling tubular to the drilling rig (Figs. 5A-5C).
Note: The above construction of the various “frame” parts as applied to Thompson, and any other reference described in this Office Action, is based upon the ordinary meaning of the words being recited. The Specification does not define the term “frame”; as such, this term is being broadly construed to mean “something composed of parts fitted together and united”, and/or “the underlying constructional system or structure that gives shape or strength”, and/or “an open case or structure made for admitting, enclosing, or supporting something” (see Merriam-Webster). With regard to the spatial terms that modify the term “frame”, they too are given their ordinary plain meaning so as to denote a location of that particular frame relative to another frame part. For example, any structure that is composed of parts fitted together that provide support, strength, and/or shape, and which is located vertically above another frame structure can properly be construed to be an “upper frame”. Therefore, even if a structure in a prior art reference is not specially named as an “upper frame”, “lower frame”, “inner frame”, “outer frame”, or combinations of these terms (e.g., “upper inner frame” or “lower outer frame”), as long as that structure provides support, strength, and/or shape, and it is spatially located relative to another frame structure (that also provides support, strength, and/or shape) according to its modifier(s) (i.e., upper, lower, inner, outer, upper inner, upper outer, lower inner, or lower outer), it is proper to construe that structure according to the recited terms used in the claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Folk such that the tubular delivery catwalk system includes an upper frame that is raised relative to a lower frame, and a frame structure/inner frame that is telescoped extended within and along a tubular deliver catwalk system because telescoping frame systems are well known and often used in the tubular handling field for extending the reach of the device the moves the tubular to the drill rig floor, as exemplified by Thompson (Figs. 3, 5A) and other prior art references (e.g., see US 8,764,368 and US 8,998,551.) The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make a similar type of modification to the tubular deliver catwalk system using known methods, and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results.
In Applicant’s November 21, 2025 Remarks, Applicant appears to be arguing that because Figs. 5B and 5C show that the structure that is being construed as the upper inner frame (300, 400) is raised relative to the structure being construed as the upper outer frame (200) such that the upper inner frame (300, 400) does not extend within and along the outer frame (200), Thompson fails to teach the recited “frame structure” or “inner frame” that is telescoped/extended “within and along an outer frame”. This argument fails because Thompson makes clear that the embodiments that are shown in Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C are different embodiments that can be used with drill rigs having different rig floor heights. More specifically, Thompson teaches:
First, FIG. 5A provides a side view of the pipe-handling machine 100 of FIG. 2, with the trestle 200 shown in an upper position in order to deliver a joint of pipe 50 onto the drilling rig floor 12. The joint of pipe 50 could be drill string, casing, production tubing, or any other type of jointed tubular. The rig floor height in this Figure is lower than the rig floor height of FIG. 3. A trough carrier transport mechanism 310A is being used to axially translate the trough carrier 300 from the trestle 200. Here, the trough carrier transport mechanism 310A simply employs a hydraulically operated cylinder 312A to extend the trough carrier 300 along the longitudinal plane of the trestle 200. (C11, L45-56)
In contrast, Thompson teaches that in Fig. 5B “The rig floor height in this Figure is higher than the rig floor height of FIG. 5A. Here, a trough carrier transport mechanism 310B is used to raise the trough carrier 300 from the trestle 200.” It is only because the rig floor height in Fig. 5B is higher that the rig floor height of Fig. 5A that the inner frame (300, 400) is raised above the outer frame (200). The fact that there are different embodiments, i.e., ways to operate, Thompson’s system does not negate what Thompson teaches with regard to one of these embodiments. As such, it is maintained that Thompson’s Fig. 5A teaches the recited “frame structure” (Claim 1) or “inner frame” (Claim 10) that is telescoped/extended “within and along an outer frame”.
However, in the event that Thompson is adjudicated to not teach, and/or teach away from the recited “frame structure” of Claim 1, or the “inner frame” of Claim 10, that are telescoped/extended “within and along an outer frame”, the rejection further relies on Dore. More specifically, Dore discloses a system for assembly drilling tubulars (100, Figs. 1-4, C1, L66 – C10, L19) that includes a system (113, Figs. 1A-1C) for providing individual tubulars or casing to a casing feed and bucking skid system (120) for combining the individual tubulars or casing, the casing feed and bucking skid system being coupled to a tubular deliver catwalk system (110), the tubular delivery catwalk system having:
a lower frame (112),
an upper frame (130, 111) that is elevated relative to the lower frame by a pair of supports (131),
a frame structure or inner frame (111)
an outer frame (130)
wherein the frame structure/inner frame (111) is telescoped/extended within the outer frame to extend along a length of the tubular delivery catwalk system/outer frame to transport the combined drilling tubular section to a drilling rig by elevating the telescoped frame structure/combined tubular sections on the elevating supports (Fig. 1C, C6, L19-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the Folk/Thompson system and method such that the tubular delivery catwalk system includes an upper frame that is raised relative to a lower frame, and a frame structure/inner frame that is telescoped/extended within and along a tubular deliver catwalk system/outer frame because telescoping frame system are well known and often used in the tubular handling field for extending the reach of the device the moves the tubular to the drill rig floor, as exemplified by Dore (Fig. 1C),Thompson (Figs. 3, 5A), and other prior art references (e.g., see US 8,764,368 and US 8,998,551.) Dore does not teach or suggest that the frame structure/inner frame is capable of being raised relative to the outer frame; as such, Dore teaches a simpler, less expensive system and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated by the advantages of a simpler, less expensive design to modify the Folk/Thompson system and method. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make a similar type of modification to the tubular deliver catwalk system using known methods, and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results.
In the event that “an inner frame” as recited in Claim 19 is construed to be a different structure than the “frame structure” recited in Claim 1, then Dore can be relied upon for providing this teaching. More specifically, these “frame” structures can be found in Dore’s casing feed and bucking skid system as follows:
With regard to Claim 19, Dore discloses “an inner frame” (123a-b, 124 a-b, Figs. 2-4);
With regard to Claim 20, Dore discloses “an upper outer frame” (125, Fig. 3);
With regard to Claim 21, Dore discloses “a lower outer frame” (126); and
With regard to Claim 22, Dore discloses “an upper frame” (the structures that support the “inner frames” (123a-b, 124a-b) as shown in Figs. 2A-2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the Folk/Thompson system and method such that the casing feed and bucking skid system included an inner frame, an upper outer frame, a lower outer frame, and an upper frame because these frame structures collectively provide the support, shapes and movement needed to hold two tubulars or casings in close end-to end proximity so as to couple or decouple the tubulars/casings to make or break longer strings of tubulars/casings, thereby providing greater efficiencies in providing the tubulars/casings to the drill rig.
With regard to the newly added limitation directed to the tubular delivery catwalk system, Dore teaches loading arms (113a, 113b, Figs. 1A-1B) that are a coupled to the tubular catwalk system catwalk system (110), and therefore form a part of the tubular delivery catwalk system, the tubular delivery catwalk system (110) being adjacent and coupled to the casing feed and bucking system (C5, L27-43), the tubular delivery catwalk system/ loading arms being configured to “raise the combined drilling tubular sections from the adjacent casing feed and bucking system” (C5, L56 – C6, L18). Dore further discloses that the tubular delivery catwalk system has an inner frame (111) that can be extended to transport the combined drilling tubular sections to the drilling rig by elevating the combined tubular sections on at least two elevating sections (131 left, 131 right, Fig. 1c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify the Folk/Thompson system and method such that the tubular delivery catwalk system was configured to be able to “raise the combined drilling tubular sections from the adjacent casing feed and bucking system” because it would allow the tubular delivery catwalk system to be able to retrieve tubulars or tubular sections from racks that are either located on the side opposite where the case feed and bucking system is located and/or, on racks that are positioned lower than tubular delivery catwalk system, as taught by Dore (c3, L49 – C4, L15; C5, L9-43). In addition, tubular delivery catwalk systems that include loading arms similar to Dore’s loading arms or other elevating structures, are well known in the art (e.g., see US 3,810,553; US 4,051,956; US 4,453,872; and US 7,614,492), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
With regard to Claims 2 and 11, Folk discloses the system and method further comprising a controller (110) coupled to the tiering rack system, the casing feed and bucking skid system and the tubular delivery catwalk system and to control an interoperation of the tiering rack system, the casing feed and bucking skid system and the tubular delivery catwalk system (C5, L50 – C6, L3).
With further regard to Claims 3 and 12, Folk discloses wherein the casing feed and bucking skid system (60, 70, 80, 120) further comprises an outer frame configured to support a plurality of elements (Figs. 1-3).
With regard to Claims 18 and 23, Folk discloses that the tubular delivery catwalk system includes a handrail (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the Folk/Thompson/Dore system and method to include a deployable handrail because handrails are well-known safety devices used by workers to walk on sub-systems used to move tubulars to and from a drilling rig. and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make a similar type of modification to the casing feed and bucking skid system using known methods, and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results. Tubular handling systems that include handrails that are removable for transport of the entire system are also well known (see the references cited in the Conclusion), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make the handrail removable for storage using known methods and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folk in view of Thompson and Dore, as applied to Claims 1 and 10 respectively, and further in view of Belik, US 8,113,762. Folk fails to disclose loading arms that are located on either the casing feed and bucking system or on the tubular delivery catwalk system. While Dore teaches loading arms (113a, 113b, Figs. 1A-1C) that are associated with both the casing feed and bucking system and the tubular delivery catwalk system , Dore fails to specifically teach loading arms that can be moved between a first and second positions for storage and processing of tubulars. Belik discloses loading arms that are located on a tubular storage device (102, 302, Figs. 1-7, 11, C2, L44 – C5, L19) that move between a first position for storage (Fig. 1) and a second position for tubular processing (Figs. 2-3), and loading arms that are located on the catwalk (114, 116, Figs. 1-8, 11) that move between a first position for storage (Fig. 8) and a second position for tubular processing (Figs. 103). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify/combine, the loading arms of Belik with the casing feed and bucking skid system and/or the tubular delivery catwalk system of the Folk/Thompson/Dore system or method because the use of movable loading arms are well known and often used in the tubular handling field (as evidenced by their use in Belik), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to make this modification using known methods for any number of reasons/advantages, such as for ease of transport of the tubular handling systems as taught by Belik (Figs. 8-11, C4, L29 – C5, L7), and the modification would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,434,705 (US ‘705).
With regard to independent Claims 1 and 10 of the present application, although the claims at issue are not identical, the present application is not patentably distinct from the US ‘705 patent because both sets of claims describe systems and methods that include a casing feed and bucking skid system and a tubular delivery catwalk system. In Claims 3-4 and 12-13 of the US ‘705 patent, the tubular delivery catwalk system and method are recited as having an outer frame that supports a plurality of elements, including an inner frame, wherein the inner frame is configured to extend from the outer frame. As such, Claims 1 and 10 of the present application have a similar scope to Claims 1/3/4 and 10/12/13 of US ‘705.
The following claims of the present application have a scope that is identical to the scope of a claim found in the US ‘705 patent:
17/886,825 (present application)
US 11,43,705 (US ‘705 patent)
2
2
7
7
11
11
16
16
The following claims of the present application have a scope that is similar to the scope of a claim found in the US ‘705 patent:
17/886,825 (present application)
US 11,43,705 (US ‘705 patent)
Difference
3
3
Claim 3 of the present application recites a feature associated with the casing feed and bucking skid system while Claim 3 of the US ‘705 patent recites the same feature as being associated with the tubular delivery catwalk system.
12
12
Claim 12 of the present application recites a feature that is not specifically associated with any of the three recited sub-systems recited in Claim 10, while Claim 12 of the US ‘705 recites the same feature as being associated with the tubular delivery catwalk system.
13
13
Claim 13 of the present application recites a feature that is not specifically associated with any of the three recited sub-systems recited in Claim 10, while Claim 13 of the US ‘705 recites the same feature as being associated with the tubular delivery catwalk system.
14
14
Claim 14 of the present application recites a feature that is not specifically associated with any of the three recited sub-systems recited in Claim 10, while Claim 14 of the US ‘705 recites the same feature as being associated with the tubular delivery catwalk system.
15
15
Claim 15 of the present application recites a feature that is not specifically associated with any of the three recited sub-systems recited in Claim 10, while Claim 15 of the US ‘705 recites the same feature as being associated with the tubular delivery catwalk system.
17
17
Claim 17 of the present application recites a feature that is not specifically associated with any of the three recited sub-systems recited in Claim 10, while Claim 17 of the US ‘705 recites the same feature as being associated with the tubular delivery catwalk system.
18
18
Claim 18 of the present application recites a feature that can be associated with any of the three recited sub-systems recited in Claim 10, while Claim 18 of the US ‘705 recites the same feature but not associated with the any of the sub-systems.
Claims 19-23 are new claims that depend from the “system for assembling drilling tubular” as recited in Claim 1, but these recited “frame” and “handrail” features were also recited in at least Claims 12-15 and 18 of the US ‘705 patent.
In view of the above, Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-23 of the present application are not patently distinct from Claims 1-18 of the US ‘705 patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference disclose tubular delivery catwalk systems that are configured to raise tubulars and/or combined tubular sections from a casing feed and bucking system:
US 3,810,553;
US 4,051,956;
US 4,453,872; and
US 7,614,492
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights