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 (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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu WO 2005092700 A1) in view of McGovney et al (US 4569168). With respect to claims 1, 3, Qi discloses the basic claimed structure including an offshore oil rig capable of being portable via floating with a central drilling pipe (inherent in a drilling platform), a walking platform 12 (Figure 1), a frame (Figures 3-7, 11) with a gliding joint box 34 and floatation devices 16, 26. Not disclosed by Qi is the frame of pipes forming a collapsible basket with central and corner boxes. McGovney et al teach a portable oil rig (Figures 1-3) with a collapsible basket frame 20 with central 83, 140 and corner boxes 54 to be within a footprint of the platform when collapsed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Xu with the frame of pipes forming a collapsible basket with central and corner boxes to be within the footprint of the walking platform when collapsed as taught by McGovney et al with a high likelihood of success for improved mobility. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu WO 2005092700 A1) in view of McGovney et al (US 4569168), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gallichan (US 4998498). With respect to claim 4, Qi does not disclose a container. Gallichan teaches a container 32, 34, 36 for a collapsible frame. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Xu with a container for the frame as taught by Gallichan with a high likelihood of success for improved mobility. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu WO 2005092700 A1) in view of McGovney et al (US 4569168), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eia et al (US 20080179097). With respect to claim 5, Qi does not disclose a drill string. Eia et al teach a drill string (paragraphs 0005, 0006). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Xu with a drill string as taught by Eia et al with a high likelihood of success for improved oil drilling. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
Claim 2 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 2 is unclear because the magnet arrays are not shown in the drawings and it is unclear how they are connected or reversed.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the first and second magnet arrays (claim 2), the collapsed footprint (claim 3) and the container (claim 4) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sinn WO 2020188124 A1) shows a frame. Brimberg (WO 2017212482 A1) shows floats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615