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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9 and 18-20 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo (10,808,469) in view of Perry (5,758,553).
[AltContent: arrow] Vo meets all of the limitations of claim 9, i.e., a pipe wrench 100 comprising a stationary wrench 140, Figs. 1, 2 comprising:
a first jaw center support, second jaw 150 LF supported on a first arm defined by lower plate of the lower clamp assembly 140, and a third jaw 150 RT supported on a second arm defined by the 140; and
a rotating wrench 135 comprising:
a fourth jaw center support, a fifth jaw 135 RT supported on a third arm annotated Fig. 1, and a sixth jaw 135LF supported on a fourth arm annotated Fig. 1:
wherein the fifth jaw 135 and sixth jaw 135 LF are each pivotal relative to the fourth jaw center portion;
wherein the rotating wrench is rotatable relative to the stationary wrench abstract; and
wherein a first cylinder is attached to the first arm and configured to pivot the second jaw relative to the first jaw;
a second cylinder is attached to the second arm and configured to pivot the third jaw relative to the first jaw;
a third cylinder 125 is attached to the third arm upper LF plate of 135 and configured to pivot the fifth jaw 135 LF relative to the fourth jaw center support; and
a fourth cylinder 125 is attached to the fourth arm upper RT plate 135, annotated above and configured to pivot the sixth jaw relative to the fourth jaw,
except for disclosing for the second jaw 150 LF and third jaw 150 RT each to be pivotal relative to the first jaw and for disclosing similar first and second cylinders for the lower clamp assembly.
PNG
media_image3.png
424
345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Perry disclose power and back up tongs, wherein the tongs are substantially similar 06:57-58. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Vo with the cylinders pivoting the jaws relative to the center support, similar to the upper clamp assembly as taught by Perry, as an alternative means to grip and secure the lower pipe.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pipe wrench assembly of claim 18 and its associated method claim 19, wherein the rotating wrench comprises a first cylinder 125 for lower assembly 140, modified by Perry configured to pivot the second jaw relative to the first jaw; a second cylinder 125 RT for lower assembly 140 configured to pivot the third jaw relative to the first jaw center support, a third cylinder 125 for upper assembly 135 configured to pivot the fifth jaw relative to the fourth jaw; a fourth cylinder 125 RT for 135 configured to pivot the sixth jaw relative to the fourth jaw; and at least one rotation cylinder not numbered Fig. 4, Vo configured to rotate the rotating wrench relative to the stationary wrench. It is noted that under the principals of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding claim 20, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the method of claim 19 wherein the first pipe is at least partially underground coupling decoupling tubulars in a drilling operation in oil and gas industry.
Claim 10 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bouligny et al. (2008/0174131).
PA (prior art, Vo modified by Perry) meets all of the limitations of claim 10, except for explicitly disclose an over-the-center mechanism.
PNG
media_image4.png
333
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bouligny et al. teaches a power tong assembly disclosing jaws that are deployed to their position by an over the center linkage [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the over-the-center mechanical linkage as suggested by Bouligny to secure the deployment jaw about its pivot.
Claim 11 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Magnuson (11,993,988).
PA (prior art, Vo modified by Perry) meets all of the limitations of claim 11, except for the stationary wrench to comprise a first frame and a second frame, slidingly attached to the first frame, wherein the first jaw is supported on the first frame
PNG
media_image5.png
352
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Magnuson teaches a torque wrench, wherein the center jaw 160b is attached to a frame 202 actuated by a piston 200 for movement towards and away from the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with a center jaw and an actuator to move the center jaw for even distribution of force between the grips.
Claims 14 and 15 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Drzewiecki (7,121,166).
PA (prior art, Vo modified by Perry and Magnuson) meets all of the limitations of claim 14, except for the jaw assembly to include a die, a tab, an insert and a pin as recited.
PNG
media_image6.png
295
275
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (TAB)][AltContent: textbox (TAB)][AltContent: arrow] Drzewiecki teaches a power tong assembly comprising a pair of clamping arms and a plurality of die assemblies including at least one die assembly for the center jaw/member and comprises:
a tab annotated fig. 7 disposed on the second frame 111 supporting the center jaw; 302; an insert 304, 306 defining a slot accommodating head 328, wherein the slot is configured to cooperate with the tab to locate the insert on the second frame; at least one die 302, positioned on the second frame by the insert 304, 306; and a pin 328 disposed through the tab, the pin having a length longer than a width of the slot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA including the center jaw with the removable jaw assembly as taught by Drzewiecki to adapt the grippers improving the system, e.g., ease of service or maintenance, providing even gripping force to help prevent slippage and marring the workpiece.
Please note that under the principals of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 16 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Richardson (6,082,225).
PNG
media_image8.png
526
369
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, Vo modified by Perry and Magnuson) meets all of the limitations of claim 9, except for at least one position actuator disposed between the stationary wrench and the rotating wrench, wherein a distance between the stationary wrench and the rotating wrench is configured to be adjusted by the position actuator.
Richardson teaches a power tong wrench having a vertical float cylinder 62 to adjust the spacing of the backup wrench and the power tong wrench. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the vertical float as taught by Richardson allowing for the necessary adjustment of spacing as the thread advances when making up a section of pipe and to allow smooth operation without the need to stop and make adjustments to the connection between the power tong and backup wrench.
Claim 17 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Orgeron et al. (9,500,049).
PA (prior art, Vo modified by Perry) meets all of the limitations of claim 9, except for further comprising a spindle for rotating a drill string; a carriage for providing thrust to the drill string.
Orgeron further teaches providing a carriage 16, Fig. 3 and an option of providing a spinner 08:43 for the wench assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the carriage and spinner as taught by Orgeron in order to install drill pipes with means for rapid screwing and unscrewing of the pipes while the tongs provide the initial breaking up and final tightening of the pipes.
Claim 22 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Orgeron and Drzewiecki (7,121,166).
PA (prior art, Vo modified by Perry) meets all of the limitations of claim 21, including for the stationary wrench 140 to be configured to grip the first drill pipe with the first jaw, the second jaw, and the third jaw while the rotating wrench grips the second drill pipe with the fourth jaw, the fifth jaw, and the sixth jaw; and the rotating wrench is configured to rotate the second drill pipe relative to the first drill pipe while the first drill pipe is gripped by the first jaw, the second jaw, and the third jaw, and the second drill pipe is gripped by the fourth jaw, the fifth jaw, and the sixth jaw, except for the first and fourth jaws to grip the workpiece and for each jaws (first through sixth) to comprise a hardened die configured to directly contact a first drill pipe and the fourth jaw, the fifth jaw, and the sixth jaw each comprise a hardened die configured to directly contact a second drill pipe.
PNG
media_image9.png
313
396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Orgeron teaches a gripping apparatus, wherein the engaging arms 279, 216 and the frame 224 each support a toothed die of a tong, or a roller of a spinner, e.g., grippers 214 and center jaw/gripper 242. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Drzewiecki with the grippers as taught by Orgeron to adapt the grippers for a tong configured to making up and breaking out threaded connections.
PNG
media_image10.png
354
239
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Drzewiecki teaches a power tong assembly comprising a pair of clamping arms and a plurality of die assemblies including at least one die assembly for the center jaw/member and comprises at least one hardened die 302, a removable insert 304 disposed about the hardened die; and a retainer 306 configured to retain the removable insert on the second frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA including the center jaw with the removable jaw assembly as taught by Drzewiecki to adapt the grippers improving the system, e.g., ease of service or maintenance, providing even gripping force to help prevent slippage and marring the workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8 and 21 are allowed.
Claim 13 is 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: art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a pipe wrench comprising a first frame; a second frame slidingly supported by the first frame and supporting a first jaw; a first arm, pivotally attached to the second frame at a first pivot point and supporting a second jaw; a second arm, pivotally attached to the second frame at a second pivot point and supporting a third jaw, wherein the first pivot point and second pivot point are separated by a first distance a first condition is defined by the third and fourth pivot points being separated by a distance greater than the first distance; and the second condition is defined by the third and fourth pivot points being separated by a distance less than the first distance, and wherein, in the second condition, the first jaw, second jaw, and third jaw are each configured to directly contact a drill pipe; or a stationary wrench and a rotation wrench with first through sixth jaws with a first frame slidingly attached to a first frame further comprising a spring assembly disposed between the first frame and the second frame, configured to bias the second frame away from the first farm, together in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 21 and 13
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they do not apply because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
September 21, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights