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 .
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:
"a means for sensing" in claim 1;
"controller selectively transmits" in clam 7;
"a means for sensing" in claim 8;
"controller selectively transmits" in claim 14.
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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,683,731 in view of Netecke.
Instant Application
Pat. No. 10,683,731
1. An interlock for a drive system of a drawworks, the interlock comprising:
1. A drill rig, comprising:
a drawworks comprising a drum operably connected to a drive system and a brake; a derrick; a drill string that extends from the drum of the drawworks, along the derrick, to a block and tackle arrangement holding a travelling block, wherein operation of the drawworks causes the drum to release or retract the drill string; a travelling block controller that controls the operation of the drawworks;
a means for sensing an operating condition of the drive system;
an interlock sensor that senses a sensed parameter, wherein the sensed parameter is at least one of a horizontal angle of the drill rig, a locked condition of the derrick that prevents the derrick from retracting, a locked condition of the derrick that prevents the derrick from retracting, or an operating limit for the drawworks set into the travelling block controller within a predetermined time of energizing the travelling block controller;
an interlock signal generated by said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system, wherein said interlock signal is reflective of the operating condition of the drive system; and
an interlock signal generated by the interlock sensor, wherein the interlock signal is reflective of the sensed parameter; and
a lock operably connected to the drawworks, wherein said lock receives said interlock signal and disables operation of the drawworks if said interlock signal meets a predetermined criterion,
an interlock operably connected to the travelling block controller, wherein the interlock receives the interlock signal and disables operation of at least one of the travelling block controller or the drawworks if the interlock signal meets a predetermined criteria.
wherein said predetermined criterion indicates that the drive system is not operating.
(taught by Netecke below)
2.
2. and Netecke [par. 0042]
4
2.
6
3.
Where Netecke teaches a criterion that indicates that a drive system is not operating ("to receive and to process data from various sensors positioned about the drawworks system 22 (e.g., a temperature sensor coupled to a brake, a speed sensor coupled to the motor 62, a speed sensor coupled to the drum shaft), to receive control signals and/or operator inputs, to provide an indication (e.g., a visual indication via a display and/or an audible indication via a speaker) of a condition of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., failure of the motor 62) to an operator, and/or to control components of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., move the brake between a braked position and a non-braked position, operate the one or more motors 62) based on the data and/or the operator inputs[par. 0033]"). Claims 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 are rejected via an analysis similar to the one performed for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 above.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,180,964 in view of Netecke.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,448,019 in view of Netecke.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nield et al. [U.S. Pub. 2019/0048688] ("Nield '688") in view of Netecke [U.S. Pub. 2019/0309583] ("Netecke").
With regard to claim 1, Nield '688 teaches an interlock for a drive system of a drawworks ("drill rig that incorporates one or more interlocks [par. 0016]" and "drawworks having a drum operably connected to a drive system and a brake [par. 0007]"), the interlock comprising:
a means for sensing an operating condition of the drive system ("the interlock sensor 70 receives at least one of a drill rig parameter 40, a drawworks parameter 50, or a travelling block controller parameter 62 [par. 0023]");
an interlock signal generated by said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system, wherein said interlock signal is reflective of the operating condition of the drive system ("The interlock sensor 70 then generates an interlock signal 72 that is reflective of the particular sensed parameter [par. 0023]"); and
a lock operably connected to the drawworks (see [fig. 2] where Interlock (80) is connected to Draw Works (20)), wherein said lock receives said interlock signal and disables operation of the drawworks if said interlock signal meets a predetermined criterion ("The interlock 80 receives the interlock signal 72 and enables or disables operation of the travelling block controller 60 and/or the drawworks 20 if the interlock signal 72 meets a predetermined criteria [par. 0024]"),
wherein said predetermined criterion indicates that the drive system is not operating properly ("if the interlock signal 72 reflects that a fluid pressure for operating the drawworks 50 is outside a required operating limit [par. 0024]").
Although Nield '688 teaches where the predetermined criterion can be a multitude of parameters [pars. 0019-0022], and specifically where the criterion can include drawwork operation parameters ("the drawworks 20 may utilize various electrical, pneumatic, or hydraulic systems for actuating the clutch 32, drive system 34, and/or brake 36. Each of these systems may have operational limits for voltage, current, pressure, or temperature to ensure safe and reliable functioning of the drawworks 20, and various sensors may be included to generate signals reflective of sensed drawworks parameters 50 to ensure safe and reliable operation of the drawworks 20 [par. 0020]),
Nield '688 does not explicitly teach where the criterion indicates that said drive system is not operating.
In an analogous art (drawworks control), Nield '912 teaches wherein a criterion indicates that a drive system is not operating ("to receive and to process data from various sensors positioned about the drawworks system 22 (e.g., a temperature sensor coupled to a brake, a speed sensor coupled to the motor 62, a speed sensor coupled to the drum shaft), to receive control signals and/or operator inputs, to provide an indication (e.g., a visual indication via a display and/or an audible indication via a speaker) of a condition of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., failure of the motor 62) to an operator, and/or to control components of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., move the brake between a braked position and a non-braked position, operate the one or more motors 62) based on the data and/or the operator inputs[par. 0033]").
Netecke further teaches, "upon determination of motor failure, the processor 138 may automatically control one or more valves to adjust (e.g., remove) the air supply that holds the one or more brakes 102 in the non-braked position, thereby causing the one or more brakes 102 to move to the braked position and to block rotation of the drum shaft 80 [par. 0042]."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Netecke's teachings of determining when a drive system is not operating, with the teachings of Nield '688 for the benefit of taking appropriate action when it is determined that the drive system if not operating properly.
With regard to claim 2, the combination above teaches the interlock as in claim 1. Netecke in the combination further teaches wherein said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system comprises a speed sensor that detects a speed at which the drive system is operating ("monitor a speed of a respective motor [par. 0042]").
With regard to claim 4, the combination above teaches the interlock as in claim 1. Nield '688 in the combination further teaches wherein said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system comprises an oil pressure sensor that detects an oil pressure for the drive system ("if the interlock signal 72 reflects that a fluid pressure for operating the drawworks 50 is outside a required operating limit [par. 0024]").
With regard to claim 6, the combination above teaches the interlock as in claim 1. Nield '688 in the combination further teaches wherein said lock disables operation of the drawworks by at least one of actuating a brake or releasing a clutch of the drawworks ("disable the drawworks 20 by actuating the brake 36 [par. 0028]").
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 8, Nield '688 teaches an interlock for a drill rig ("drill rig that incorporates one or more interlocks [par. 0016]"), comprising:
a drawworks comprising a drum operably connected to a drive system and a brake ("drawworks having a drum operably connected to a drive system and a brake [par. 0007]");
a cable that extends from said drum of said drawworks to a block and tackle arrangement holding a traveling block ("A drill string extends from the drum of the drawworks, along a derrick, to a block and tackle arrangement holding a travelling block [par. 0007]"), wherein operation of said drawworks causes said drum to release or retract said cable ("so that operation of the drawworks causes the drum to release or retract the drill string [par. 0007]");
a means for sensing an operating condition of said drive system ("the interlock sensor 70 receives at least one of a drill rig parameter 40, a drawworks parameter 50, or a travelling block controller parameter 62 [par. 0023]");
an interlock signal generated by said means for sensing said operating condition of said drive system, wherein said interlock signal is reflective of said operating condition of said drive system ("The interlock sensor 70 then generates an interlock signal 72 that is reflective of the particular sensed parameter [par. 0023]"); and
a lock operably connected to said drawworks (see [fig. 2] where Interlock (80) is connected to Draw Works (20)), wherein said lock receives said interlock signal and disables operation of said drawworks if said interlock signal meets a predetermined criterion ("The interlock 80 receives the interlock signal 72 and enables or disables operation of the travelling block controller 60 and/or the drawworks 20 if the interlock signal 72 meets a predetermined criteria [par. 0024]"),
wherein said predetermined criterion indicates that said drive system is not operating properly ("if the interlock signal 72 reflects that a fluid pressure for operating the drawworks 50 is outside a required operating limit [par. 0024]").
Although Nield '688 teaches where the predetermined criterion can be a multitude of parameters [pars. 0019-0022], and specifically where the criterion can include drawwork operation parameters ("the drawworks 20 may utilize various electrical, pneumatic, or hydraulic systems for actuating the clutch 32, drive system 34, and/or brake 36. Each of these systems may have operational limits for voltage, current, pressure, or temperature to ensure safe and reliable functioning of the drawworks 20, and various sensors may be included to generate signals reflective of sensed drawworks parameters 50 to ensure safe and reliable operation of the drawworks 20 [par. 0020]),
Nield '688 does not explicitly teach where the criterion indicates that said drive system is not operating.
In the same field of endeavor (monitoring a drive system), Nield '912 teaches wherein a criterion indicates that a drive system is not operating ("to receive and to process data from various sensors positioned about the drawworks system 22 (e.g., a temperature sensor coupled to a brake, a speed sensor coupled to the motor 62, a speed sensor coupled to the drum shaft), to receive control signals and/or operator inputs, to provide an indication (e.g., a visual indication via a display and/or an audible indication via a speaker) of a condition of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., failure of the motor 62) to an operator, and/or to control components of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., move the brake between a braked position and a non-braked position, operate the one or more motors 62) based on the data and/or the operator inputs[par. 0033]").
Netecke further teaches, "upon determination of motor failure, the processor 138 may automatically control one or more valves to adjust (e.g., remove) the air supply that holds the one or more brakes 102 in the non-braked position, thereby causing the one or more brakes 102 to move to the braked position and to block rotation of the drum shaft 80 [par. 0042]."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Netecke's teachings of determining when a drive system is not operating, with the teachings of Nield '688 for the benefit of taking appropriate action when it is determined that the drive system if not operating properly.
With regard to claim 9, the combination above teaches claim 2. Claim 9 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 2; therefore, claim 9 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 2.
With regard to claim 11, the combination above teaches claim 4. Claim 11 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 4; therefore, claim 11 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 4.
With regard to claim 13, the combination above teaches the interlock as in claim 8. Nield '688 in the combination further teaches wherein said lock disables operation of said drawworks by at least one of disabling said drive system or actuating said brake ("disable the drawworks 20 by actuating the brake 36 [par. 0028]").
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 15, Nield '688 teaches a method for operating a drill rig ("drill rig that incorporates one or more interlocks [par. 0016]"), comprising:
operating a drive system in a drawworks to raise and lower a drill string ("so that operation of the drawworks causes the drum to release or retract the drill string [par. 0007]");
sensing an operating condition of the drive system ("the interlock sensor 70 receives at least one of a drill rig parameter 40, a drawworks parameter 50, or a travelling block controller parameter 62 [par. 0023]");
generating an interlock signal that reflects the operating condition of the drive system ("The interlock sensor 70 then generates an interlock signal 72 that is reflective of the particular sensed parameter [par. 0023]"); and
disabling the drawworks if said interlock signal meets a predetermined criterion ("The interlock 80 receives the interlock signal 72 and enables or disables operation of the travelling block controller 60 and/or the drawworks 20 if the interlock signal 72 meets a predetermined criteria [par. 0024]"),
wherein said predetermined criterion indicates that the drive system is not operating properly ("if the interlock signal 72 reflects that a fluid pressure for operating the drawworks 50 is outside a required operating limit [par. 0024]").
Although Nield '688 teaches where the predetermined criterion can be a multitude of parameters [pars. 0019-0022], and specifically where the criterion can include drawwork operation parameters ("the drawworks 20 may utilize various electrical, pneumatic, or hydraulic systems for actuating the clutch 32, drive system 34, and/or brake 36. Each of these systems may have operational limits for voltage, current, pressure, or temperature to ensure safe and reliable functioning of the drawworks 20, and various sensors may be included to generate signals reflective of sensed drawworks parameters 50 to ensure safe and reliable operation of the drawworks 20 [par. 0020]),
Nield '688 does not explicitly teach where the criterion indicates that said drive system is not operating.
In the same field of endeavor (monitoring a drive system), Nield '912 teaches wherein a criterion indicates that a drive system is not operating ("to receive and to process data from various sensors positioned about the drawworks system 22 (e.g., a temperature sensor coupled to a brake, a speed sensor coupled to the motor 62, a speed sensor coupled to the drum shaft), to receive control signals and/or operator inputs, to provide an indication (e.g., a visual indication via a display and/or an audible indication via a speaker) of a condition of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., failure of the motor 62) to an operator, and/or to control components of the drawworks system 22 (e.g., move the brake between a braked position and a non-braked position, operate the one or more motors 62) based on the data and/or the operator inputs[par. 0033]").
Netecke further teaches, "upon determination of motor failure, the processor 138 may automatically control one or more valves to adjust (e.g., remove) the air supply that holds the one or more brakes 102 in the non-braked position, thereby causing the one or more brakes 102 to move to the braked position and to block rotation of the drum shaft 80 [par. 0042]."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Netecke's teachings of determining when a drive system is not operating, with the teachings of Nield '688 for the benefit of taking appropriate action when it is determined that the drive system if not operating properly.
With regard to claim 16, the combination above teaches claim 2. Claim 16 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 2; therefore, claim 16 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 2.
With regard to claim 19, the combination above teaches the method as in claim 15. Nield '688 in the combination teaches the method further comprising disabling operation of the drawworks by at least one of disabling the drive system or actuating a brake associated with the drawworks ("disable the drawworks 20 by actuating the brake 36 [par. 0028]").
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 20, the combination above teaches the method as in claim 15. Nield '688 in the combination teaches the method further selectively transmitting said interlock signal to disable the drawworks ("The interlock 80 receives the interlock signal 72 and enables or disables operation of the travelling block controller 60 and/or the drawworks 20 if the interlock signal 72 meets a predetermined criteria [par. 0024]").
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nield '688 in view of Netecke further in view of Nelson et al. [U.S. Pub. 2007/0050096] ("Nelson").
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Nield '688 and Netecke teaches the interlock as in claim 2. Nield '688 in the combination further teaches wherein said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system further comprises a("the interlock sensor 70 receives at least one of a drill rig parameter 40, a drawworks parameter 50, or a travelling block controller parameter 62 [par. 0023]").
Although Nield '688 teaches a multitude of sensor parameters for sensing operating condition [pars. 0019-0022] and Netecke teaches using sensed operating conditions to sense the operating condition of the drive system [par. 0033], the combination does not explicitly teach a gear sensor that detects a gear in which the drive system is operating.
In the same field of endeavor (obtaining sensor data), Nelson teaches a gear sensor that detects a gear in which a drive system is operating ("The transmission signal 100 may be based on a crankshaft angular position, a transmission output speed, a transmission gear position sensor [par. 0028]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included a gear sensor as taught by Nelson, with Nield '688 and Netecke's teachings of obtaining operational parameters to determine whether the drive system is operating properly, for the benefit of using a greater number of metrics when determining whether the drive system is operating properly, predictably providing a more informed decision.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Nield '688 and Netecke teaches the interlock as in claim 1. Nield '688 in the combination further teaches wherein said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system comprising a("the interlock sensor 70 receives at least one of a drill rig parameter 40, a drawworks parameter 50, or a travelling block controller parameter 62 [par. 0023]").
Although Nield '688 teaches a multitude of sensor parameters for sensing operating condition [pars. 0019-0022] and Netecke teaches using sensed operating conditions to sense the operating condition of the drive system [par. 0033], the combination does not explicitly teach a fuel flow sensor that detects a fuel flow to the drive system.
In the same field of endeavor (obtaining sensor data), Nelson teaches a fuel flow sensor that detects a fuel flow to a drive system ("The fuel system signal 90 may be based on a signal from a fuel pressure sensor, a fuel flow rate sensor [par. 0026]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included a fuel flow sensor as taught by Nelson, with Nield '688 and Netecke's teachings of obtaining operational parameters to determine whether the drive system is operating properly, for the benefit of using a greater number of metrics when determining whether the drive system is operating properly, predictably providing a more informed decision.
With regard to claims 10 and 17, the combination above teaches claim 3. Claims 10 and 17 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 3; therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected along the same grounds as claim 3.
With regard to claims 12 and 18, the combination above teaches claim 5. Claims 12 and 18 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 5; therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected along the same grounds as claim 5.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nield '688 in view of Netecke further in view of Nield et al. [U.S. Pub. 2021/0054698] ("Nield '698").
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Nield '688 and Netecke teaches the interlock as in claim 1. Nield '688 in the combination teaches the interlock further comprising asensor operably connected between said means for sensing the operating condition of the drive system and said lock, and wherein saidsensor transmits said interlock signal to said lock ("The interlock sensor 70 then generates an interlock signal 72 that is reflective of the particular sensed parameter [par. 0023]").
Although Nield '688 teaches the interlock being implemented in different configurations [par. 0025], the combination does not explicitly teach where a controller selectively transmits the signals.
In an analogous art (drawworks control), Nield '698 teaches a controller operably connected between a means for sensing an operating condition of a drive system and a lock, and wherein said controller selectively transmits said interlock signal to said lock ("the interlock 50 may optionally include a controller 64 operably connected between the means 52 for sensing the position of the segment hoist 38 and the lock 62 to selectively transmit the interlock signal 60 to the lock 62 [par. 0028]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Nield '698's controller, with the teachings of Nield '688, since the combination predictable uses prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. That is, the controller of Neild '698 would predictably allow the system of Nield '688 to generate and transmit the interlock signal.
With regard to claim 14, the combination above teaches claim 7. Claim 14 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 7; therefore, claim 14 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 7.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holck [U.S. Pub. 2016/0083228] teaches stopping a drawworks in response to a detected failure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119