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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/27/23 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because “Construction Safety Manual” has not identified which portions of the 497 pages are considered relevant. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Further, documents such as 184 pages of safety guidelines and 51 pages of Diving standards have been submitted without reference on the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “252” has been used to designate both second movable mount and LEL detector Iparagraph 0028). 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. 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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100 (Fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmann et al. (US 8362905) in view of API Recommended Practice 54.
CLAIM 1: Lohmann discloses an apparatus. The apparatus comprises: a first track (see Fig. 1, inside of unit 22); a first mounting block (2) displaceably mounted to the first track; a first gas detecto (3; see col. 1, lines 10-11) is mounted on the first mounting block; and a first displacement mechanism (22) that displaces the first mounting block along the first track between: a first position and a second position (maintenance and measuring positions).
Lohmann fails to disclose using the apparatus in the cellar of a well.
API discloses industry standards for the oil and well industry.
API discloses well cellars as a confined space (Rule 6.4.1). API further discloses that confined spaces must be assessed for hazardous atmosphere (Rule 6.4.2) which includes monitoring (Rule 6.7.3).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would use the apparatus of Lohmann to monitor the cellar as required by the relevant guidelines with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known method of monitoring an area without exposing a person to the area.
CLAIM 2: API discloses the cellar is adjacent to an oil well or gas well (see title).
CLAIM 3: The first position is located below a terrestrial surface and the second position is located above the terrestrial surface (Lohmann discloses the maintenance and measuring positions on either side of the flange 4; API teaching that wells can be underground).
CLAIM 4: It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second gas detector as a duplication of parts in which both gas detectors would serve the same function and not result in a new and unexpected result.
CLAIM 5: It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the second gas detector is mounted on the first mounting block as Lohmann teaches the location allows for proper monitoring.
CLAIM 6: API teaches the first gas detector is a Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) gas detector (see 6.4.2 discussing “potential for engulfing an entrant”) and the second gas detector is a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas detector (see 6.7).
CLAIM 7: It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second track; a second mounting block displaceably mounted with respect to the second track, wherein the second gas detector is mounted on the second mounting block; and a second displacement mechanism that displaces the second mounting block along the second track between: a third position located inside the cellar; and a fourth position located outside of the cellar as a duplication of parts in which the second track and associated parts would serve the same function as the first set and not result in a new and unexpected result.
CLAIM 8: The first gas detector is a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas detector and the second gas detector is a Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) gas detector (see discussion of claim 6 above).
CLAIM 9: The third position is at a higher position in the cellar than the first position (see Lohmann discussing maintenance being higher than monitoring position).
CLAIM 10: Lohmann fails to disclose wherein the first displacement mechanism comprises one or more ropes mounted on a pulley system.
Examiner takes official notice that ropes and pulleys are well known in the art as a means of raising and lowering objects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a well known rope and pulley system for the hydraulic system of Lohmann with a reasonable expectation of success as the simple substitution of one known displacement means for another in which each would perform the same function of raising and lowering the sensor.
CLAIM 11: API discloses the first mounting block is formed from a non-sparking material (see 6.2.3.1 discussing the need to confine sparks; 5.2.2.1 avoiding sparks).
CLAIM 12: The first mounting block comprises a monolithic block component (see Lohmann Fig. 1), and the first track guides sliding displacement of the monolithic block component (Lohmann Fig. 1).
CLAIMS 13-20: These methods are inherent to the above structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows similar sensor movements and well cellars.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676