DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 14 are pending. Claims 15 – 20 are allowed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 1 “loading an unloading should be “loading and unloading”’ Claim 6 line 2, movably should be movable; claim 8, line 3, “plurality longitudinal support members” should be “plurality of longitudinal support members”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: hoist engagement members in at least claim 7. The figures identify the hoist engagement members as flanges, 20 as shown in Fig. 7.
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 § 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 3 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 3 recites the limitation “a portion” in line 3. The limitation is vague in that is unclear if this is the same portion of claim 2 or if Applicant is introducing an additional portion. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a chamber portion” to differentiate between the portion of claim 2.
Claims 4 – 7 are further rejected s being dependents of rejected claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0245728 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Anderson teaches a pipeline pig handling apparatus (10; Fig. 1) configured to provide loading and unloading of pipeline pigs (Abstract) wherein the pipeline pig handling apparatus (10) comprises: a frame (Fig. 1), said frame having a plurality of support members (cylinders, 60; Fig. 6), said frame being divided into a first portion (12; Fig. 1)) and a second portion (16; Fig. 1), said frame having a first end (14) and a second end (18); a drive unit (hydraulic actuator, 59), said drive unit (59) being disposed in said first portion (12) of said frame (Fig. 6), said drive unit (59) including a drive motor (Paragraph [0045]), said drive unit (59) further including a power supply (engine, 70; Paragraph [0050]) and an oil reservoir (Paragraph [0045]), said drive unit (59) configured to provide operation of a ram shaft (ramrod, 24); a plunger chamber (chamber body, 20), said plunger chamber (20) being disposed in the second portion (16) of said frame (Fig. 1), said plunger chamber (20) having an interior volume (Fig. 6), said plunger chamber (20) having a plunger (piston, 58; Paragraph [0044]) movably disposed within the interior volume Paragraph [0044], said plunger chamber (20) being operably coupled to said ram shaft (24); and wherein said plunger (58) is configured to propel a pipeline pig into a pipeline (Paragraph [0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0245728 A1) in view of Disher (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0363249 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Anderson teaches a pipeline pig handling apparatus (10; Fig. 1) configured to provide loading pipeline pigs (Abstract); wherein the pipeline pig handling apparatus (101) comprises: a frame (Fig. 1), said frame having a plurality longitudinal support members (cylinders, 60; Fig. 6), said frame being divided into a first portion (12) and a second portion, (16) said frame having a first end (14) and a second end (18), said frame having a top and a bottom (Fig. 1); a drive motor (Paragraph [0050]), said drive motor being a combustible engine motor (engine, 70; Paragraph [0050]), said drive motor (50) being disposed in said first portion of said frame (Paragraph [0050]; Fig. 6); a ram shaft (24), said ram shaft (24) being hydraulically controlled by said drive motor (Paragraph [0045] – via the hydraulic actuator, 59); an oil reservoir (Paragraph [0045]), said oil reservoir (Paragraph [0045]) being disposed in said first portion (12) of said frame (Paragraph [0045]); a plunger chamber (20), said plunger chamber (20) being disposed in the second portion (16) of said frame (Fig. 1), said plunger chamber (20) having an interior volume (Fig. 1), said plunger chamber (20) having a plunger (piston, 58; Paragraph [0044]) movably disposed within the interior volume Paragraph [0044], said plunger chamber (20) being operably coupled to said ram shaft (24); and wherein said plunger (58) is configured to propel a pipeline pig into a pipeline (Paragraph [0010]).
Anderson does not explicitly teach said frame further having a plurality of vertical support members being operably coupled to said plurality of longitudinal support members, said frame further including a plurality of horizontal support members.
Disher, however, teaches a frame (Fig. 4) having a plurality longitudinal support members (18; Fig. 4); frame (Fig. 4) further having a plurality of vertical support members (20) being operably coupled to said plurality of longitudinal support members (18), said frame further including a plurality of horizontal support members (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Anderson to further include a plurality of vertical support members being operably coupled to said plurality of longitudinal support members, said frame further including a plurality of horizontal support members, as taught by Anderson, to provide a frame that holds the pig in a proper orientation, against tipping, thus preventing damage to the pig.
Regarding Claim 9, Anderson, as modified, teaches said plunger (58) includes a first portion (portion connecting at 56; Fig. 7) and a second portion (portion connecting at 61; Fig. 7), said first portion and said second portion of said plunger being contiguously formed (Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Anderson teaches a pig handling apparatus, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a concentric reducer, said concentric reducer being contiguously formed with said plunger chamber, said concentric reducer having a portion extending beyond the second end of said frame.
Claims 16 – 20 are further allowed as dependents of claim 15.
Claims 2 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Anderson teaches a pig handling apparatus, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious a concentric reducer, said concentric reducer being contiguously formed with said plunger chamber, said concentric reducer having a portion extending beyond the second end of said frame as require by claim 2 and a concentric reducer, said concentric reducer being contiguously formed with said plunger chamber, said concentric reducer having a first portion and a second portion, said second portion of said concentric reducer extending beyond the second end of said frame as required by claim 10.
Claims 3 – 7 and 11 – 14 are further objected as dependents of claims 2 and 10.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0137029 A1 to Peterson teaches an apparatus and related method are provided for loading a pig into a pipeline. The apparatus includes a tubular reducer, a rigid member for attachment to a cable and including a pig-engaging surface, and a guide member slidingly engaged by the rigid member to permit axial movement, while limiting radial movement, of the rigid member in relation to the reducer. In use, when the reducer is aligned concentrically with the pipeline end with the front end of the reducer bearing axially, either directly or indirectly, against the pipeline end, and the pig-engaging surface is disposed axially rearward of the reducer, increased tension in the cable pulls the rigid member axially forward relative to the pipeline, whereupon the attached pig-engaging surface pushes the pig through the reducer and into the pipeline interior.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723