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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Stoldt (US 20180283427 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stoldt discloses a method for extending rig bails, comprising: bringing a rig bail towards a connector end of a quick bail system such that an eyelet of the rig bail makes contact with a latch pin of the quick bail system so that the latch pin is moved to an open position (see annotated Fig. 3A below); moving the eyelet of the rig bail to enter the connector end of the quick bail system and aligning the rig bail with the quick bail system (see Fig. 3A); lowering the rig bails until the eyelet of the rig bail is fully entered into the connector end of the quick bail system (see Fig. 3A); and returning the latch pin to a closed position (see Fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Stoldt discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein moving the eyelet of the rig bail towards the quick bail system causes the latch pin of the quick bail system to be moved to the open position to allow the eyelet of the rig bail to enter the connection end of the quick bail system and mate with the quick bail system (see Fig. 3A for eyelet of rig bail entering the connection and mates with quick bail system).
Regarding claim 4, Stoldt discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when the latch pin is in the closed position, a hinge of the latch pin does not take a load of the rig bail (see Fig. 3A for when the latch is in the closed position, the load does not weigh on the pin).
Regarding claim 5, Stoldt discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the latch pin in closed position inhibits rotation of the rig bails (see Fig. 3A for the latch pin can inhibit rotation of the connected rig bail).
Regarding claim 7, Stoldt discloses a quick bail system for extending a rig bail, comprising: a bail extender configured to connect to rig equipment (see annotated Fig. 3A below); a connector at an axial end of the bail extender and configured to be brought into proximity of a rig bail (see Fig. 3A); and a latch pin coupled to the connector and configured to contact an eyelet of the rig bail, such that the eyelet moves the latch pin to an open position, wherein the eyelet of the rig bail enters the connector of the quick bail system, and wherein the latch pin is configured to return to a closed position such that the latch pin is received through the eyelet of the rig bail and retains the eyelet (see Fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image2.png
727
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Stoldt discloses the quick bail system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the latch pin is configured to be moved to an open position by the eyelet of the rig bail (see Fig. 3A for the latch pin able to move to a open position), such that the eyelet of the rig bail pushes the latch pin toward an open position, permitting the eyelet to enter the connector (see Fig. 3A for the eyelet of rig bail permitted to enter connector).
Regarding claim 9, Stoldt discloses the quick bail system as claimed in claim 7, further comprising hinge connecting the latch pin to the connector (see Para. 0020 and Fig. 3A), wherein the hinge is configured to bias the latch pin toward the closed position so as to return the latch pin to the closed position after the eyelet is received into the connector (see Fig. 3A for latch pin returning to closed position after eyelet is received into connector).
Regarding claim 10, Stoldt discloses the quick bail system as claimed in claim 9, wherein when the latch pin is in the closed position, the latch pin transmits axial loads to the connector, and wherein the hinge does not take the load of the rig bail (see Fig. 3A for the latch pin in closed position, and hinge not taking any load of the rig bail).
Regarding claim 11, Stoldt discloses the quick bail system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the connector is configured to inhibit rotation of the one of the rig bail relative to the bail extender (see Fig. 3A for the connector being able to inhibit rotation of the rig bail).
Regarding claim 12, Stoldt discloses the quick bail system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the quick bail assembly is moved with respect to the rig bail such that the latch pin is pivoted to the open position and the rig bail is released from the quick bail assembly (see Fig. 3A for latch being able to be moved to open position to release rig bail).
Regarding claim 13, Stoldt discloses an apparatus for extending a rig bail, comprising: a bail extender (120; see Fig. 4); a connector coupled to or integral with the bail extender (130; see Fig. 4), wherein the connector comprises a first leg and a second leg that define a receiving area therebetween (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the first leg defining a first slot therethrough (see annotated Fig. 4 below), and the second leg defining a second slot therethrough (see annotated Fig. 4 below); and a latch pin (305; see Fig. 4) pivotally coupled to the first leg, extending through the first slot, the receiving area, and the second slot (see Fig. 4 for pin extending through first slot, receiving area, and second slot), the latch pin having a closed position in which the latch pin engages the first and second legs and is configured to transmit a force between the first and second legs and the rig bail (see Fig. 3A for latch able to be in closed position, configured to transmit force between first and second leg), and an open position in which the latch pin is moved away from the second leg and permits an end of the rig bail to access the receiving area between the first and second legs (see Fig. 3A for latch able to be in open position allowing rig bail to access receiving area).
PNG
media_image3.png
713
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Stoldt discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 13, further comprising a hinge that connects the latch pin to the first leg, wherein the hinge biases the latch pin to the closed position (see Fig. 3A for a hinged latch pin in closes position.
Regarding claim 15, Stoldt discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 14, wherein the hinge is connected to a face of the first leg that is opposite to the receiving area (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
687
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Stoldt discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the latch pin comprises a distal end that engages the second leg (see annotated Fig. 4 below), and a lip that is configured to engage a face of the second leg that is opposite to the receiving area, when the latch pin is in a closed position (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
687
649
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Stoldt discloses the apparatus of claim 13, further comprising a second connector end (166; see Fig. 4) coupled to or integral with the bail extender and configured to engage an elevator for lifting tubulars (see Para. 0015).
Regarding claim 18, Stoldt discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the rig bail comprises a first rig bail (125; see Fig. 2), the bail extender comprises a first bail extender (120; see Fig. 2), and the connector comprises a first connector (130; see Fig. 2), the apparatus further comprising a second bail extender (121; see Fig. 4) and a second connector (130; see Fig. 4) coupled to or integral therewith, the first bail extender being configured to connect to the first rig bail via the first connector (see Fig. 4), and the second bail extender being configured to connect to a second rig bail via the second connector (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Stoldt discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the latch pin has a profiled under side configured to receive an end of the rig bail (see Fig. 3A for the latch pin having a profiled under side which can receive and end of the rig bail).
Regarding claim 20, Stoldt discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the receiving area extends transverse to the first and second slots (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
687
649
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Stoldt discloses the apparatus of claim 13, herein the latch pin is configured to be pivoted from the closed position to the open position by engagement with the end of the rig bail (see Fig. 3A for latch pin able to be pivoted from open to closed position or vice versa).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoldt (US 20180283427 A1) in view of Taylor (US 11891139 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Stoldt discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Stoldt fails to disclose wherein, after the rig bails are fully lowered into the quick bail system, the latch pin returns to the closed position by a spring mechanism and the quick bail system locks into place.
However, Taylor teaches a method for a latch mechanism wherein, after the rig bails are fully lowered into the quick bail system, the latch pin returns to the closed position by a spring mechanism and the quick bail system locks into place (see Col. 7, lines 64-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a latch mechanism wherein, after the rig bails are fully lowered into the quick bail system, the latch pin returns to the closed position by a spring mechanism and the quick bail system locks into place on the method of Stoldt, as taught by Taylor, to offer automatic locking and/or a quick release system.
Regarding claim 6, Stoldt, in view of Taylor, discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein to disengage the rig bail from the quick bail system, the quick bail system is moved with relative to the rig bail such that the latch pin is rotated into open position the rig bail is released from the quick bail system (see Fig. 3A for the latch pin able to rotate into the open position, allowing the rig bail to be released from the quick bail system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights