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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0003, line 2, “such as casing, drill pipe, and tubing” should read “such as casing, drill pipes, and tubing”.
In paragraph 0011, lines 3-4, “stabilizers configured to retract” should read “stabilizers are configured to retract”.
In paragraph 0014, line 1, “fourth attachment points” should read “four attachment points”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, "configured to retract" should read "are configured to retract".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 4, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kushmanov et al (SU 867839).
Regarding claim 1, Kushmanov et al teaches a casing lifting system, comprising (Paragraph 0002):
a spreader bar (1) (Page 3, paragraph 7; Fig. 1, element 1);
a first lifting cap (5) configured to engage a first end of a first section of drilling casing (6), the first lifting cap (5) including a first lifting lug (Page 3, paragraph 7; fig. 1, elements 5, 6; annotated figure);
and a second lifting cap (5) configured to engage a second end of the first section of drilling casing (6) opposite the first end of the first section of drilling casing (6), the second lifting cap (5) including a second lifting lug (Page 3, paragraph 7; fig. 1, elements 5, 6; annotated figure);
wherein each of the first and second lifting caps (5) are configured for coupling adjacent to opposing lateral ends of the spreader bar (6) by respective first and second elastic stabilizers coupled between the first and second lifting lugs and first attachment points adjacent to the opposing lateral ends of the spreader bar (6) (Page 3, paragraph 7; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kushmanov et al teaches each of the first and second lifting caps (5) are further configured for coupling to an underside of the spreader bar (1) by respective first and second slings coupled between the first and second lifting lugs and second attachment points along the underside of the spreader bar (1) (Page 3, paragraph 7; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
463
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kushmanov et al teaches the first section of drilling casing (6) provides a load, and wherein the first and second slings substantially carry the load (Page 1, paragraph 8; Page 2, paragraph 2; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
463
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kushmanov et al teaches the second attachment points are disposed between the first attachment points adjacent to the opposing lateral ends of the spreader bar (1) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
463
681
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Kushmanov et al teaches a method of using a casing lifting system, comprising:
providing the casing lifting system, the casing lifting system including at least a spreader bar (1) and a pair of lifting caps (5) suspended from ends of the spreader bar (1) by respective elastic stabilizers having a first stabilizer length (Page 3, paragraph 7; annotated figure);
grasping and pulling down on the suspended pair of lifting caps (5) to extend the respective elastic stabilizers to a second stabilizer length greater than the first stabilizer length (Page 2, paragraph 8; page 3, paragraph 1; page 4, paragraph 6);
and after extending the respective elastic stabilizers, positioning the pair of lifting caps (5) onto opposing ends of a section of drilling casing (6) (Page 3, paragraph 7; page 4, paragraph 6).
Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
463
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Kushmanov et al teaches prior to the grasping and pulling down on the suspended pair of lifting caps (5), lowering the spreader bar (1) into a position over the section of drilling casing (6) such that the pair of lifting caps (5) suspended from ends of the spreader bar (1) by the respective elastic stabilizers are disposed near each of the opposing ends of the section of drilling casing (6) (Page 2, paragraphs 2, 6).
Claim(s) 14, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bellow (U.S. Patent No. 4842314).
Regarding claim 14, Bellow teaches a casing lifting cap (12, 14), comprising (Abstract):
an annular wall portion (22) (Column 2, lines 61-66; Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 22);
an end plate portion (24) coupled to the annular wall portion (22) near a back end of the casing lifting cap (12, 14), the annular wall portion (22) and the end plate portion (24) defining an interior space (26) configured to receive an end of a section of drilling casing (20) (Column 2, lines 61-66; Fig. 5, elements 12, 22, 24, 26);
and a lifting lug (28) coupled to the annular wall portion (22) along a top surface of the casing lifting cap (12, 14), the lifting lug (28) including a first hole (30) and a second hole (30), the first hole (30) configured for connecting the casing lifting cap (12, 14) to a spreader bar using a sling (34), and the second hole (30) configured for connecting the casing lifting cap (12, 14) to an end of the spreader bar using an elastic stabilizer (34) (Column 3, lines 3-10, 31-38; Fig. 1, elements 12, 28, 34; Fig. 2, elements 28, 30).
Regarding claim 15, Bellow teaches the end plate portion (24) is recessed at the back end of the casing lifting cap (12, 14) to provide a lip around a perimeter of the back end of the casing lifting cap (12, 14) (Column 2, lines 61-66; Fig. 5, elements 12, 24).
Regarding claim 17, Bellow teaches the elastic stabilizer (34) is configured to keep the casing lifting cap (12, 14) near an end of the section of drilling casing and within reach of a user (Column 3, lines 29-38, 52-61; Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 34).
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) 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushmanov et al in view of Bellow (US 4842314).
Regarding claim 5, Kushmanov et al fails to teach end caps that can be manipulated by a user. Bellow teaches a lifting device wherein the first and second elastic stabilizers (34) are configured to keep the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) near the first and second ends of the first section of drilling casing (20) within reach of a user (Column 3, lines 29-38, 52-61; Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Bellow in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of end caps that can be readily accessed and manipulated by the user as taught by Bellow (Column 3, lines 52-61).
Regarding claim 10, Kushmanov et al fails to teach a lifting cap with an annular wall portion. Bellow teaches a lifting device wherein at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) include an annular wall portion (22) and an end plate portion (24) coupled to the annular wall portion (22) at a back end of the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) to define an interior space (26) at a front end of the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) within which at least one of the first and second ends of the first section of drilling casing (20) is configured to engage the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) (Column 2, lines 61-66; Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Bellow in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of a lifting cap with an annular portion that can form an appropriate receptacle for the casing as taught by Bellow (Column 2, lines 66-68; Column 3, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Kushmanov et al fails to teach a lifting cap with an end plate. Bellow teaches a lifting device wherein the end plate portion (24) is recessed at the back end of the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) to provide a lip around a perimeter of the back end of the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) (Column 2, lines 61-66; Fig. 5, elements 12, 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Bellow in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of a lifting cap with an end plate portion that helps secure the casing during insertion as taught by Bellow (Column 1, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 12, Kushmanov et al fails to teach a handle on the end plate. Bellow teaches a lifting device wherein the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) includes a handle (36) coupled to the end plate portion (24) (Column 3, lines 14-19; Fig. 2, elements 24, 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Bellow in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of a lifting cap with a handle that allows the user to manually attach the cap to the casing as taught by Bellow (Column 3, lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 13, Kushmanov et al fails to teach a sleeve lining. Bellow teaches a lifting device wherein the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) are configurable for installation of a sleeve lining disposed within the interior space (26) of the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) to define a modified interior space (26) within which at least one of the first and second ends of the first section of drilling casing are configured to engage the at least one of the first and second lifting caps (12, 14) (Column 2, lines 61-68; column 2, lines 1-3; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Bellow in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of a lifting cap with a sleeve that allows the casing to readily enter the lifting cap as taught by Bellow (Column 2, lines 61-68; column 2, lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image6.png
262
290
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Kushmanov et al fails to teach removing the lifting caps. Bellow et al teaches a method of using a lifting device, including removing the pair of lifting caps (12, 14) from the opposing ends of the section of drilling casing (20), wherein the removing causes the respective elastic stabilizers (34) to retract to the first stabilizer length (Column 3, lines 54-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Bellow in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of end caps that can be readily attached and removed by the user as taught by Bellow (Column 3, lines 29-38).
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushmanov et al in view of Myers et al (US 2017247228).
Regarding claim 6, Kushmanov et al fails to teach elastic stabilizers with varying lengths. Myers et al teaches a lifting device wherein the first and second elastic stabilizers (12,14) are configured to stretch to a first length when the first and second lifting caps (10, 11) are engaged to respective ones of the first and second ends of the first section of drilling casing (2) (Paragraph 0029, lines 1-10; Fig. 1, elements 10, 11, 12, 14);
and wherein the first and second elastic stabilizers (12,14) configured to retract to a second length shorter than the first length when the first and second lifting caps (10, 11) are not engaged to the respective ones of the first and second ends of the first section of drilling casing (2) (Paragraph 0029, lines 1-10; Fig. 1, elements 10, 11, 13, 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Myers et al in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of elastic stabilizers that limit the amount of compressive force exerted on the spreader as taught by Myers et al (Paragraph 0029, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 7, Kushmanov et al further teaches the spreader bar (1) further includes third attachment points (7) along a topside of the spreader bar (1), the third attachment points (7) configured for coupling to a master link assembly (9) by respective first and second lifting slings (8) coupled between the third attachment points (7) and the master link assembly (9) (Paragraph 0009, 0010; fig. 1, elements 1, 7, 8).
Regarding claim 26, Kushmanov et al fails to teach taglines. Myers et al teaches a method of using a lifting device, including attaching respective taglines, by a breakaway coupling connection, to a recessed end plate portion (35) at a back end of the pair of lifting caps (10) (Paragraph 0036, lines 9-12; Fig. 2, elements 10, 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Myers et al in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of tag lines that create a safe distance between the lifting system and the load being lifted as taught by Myers et al (Paragraph 0036 9-12).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushmanov et al in view of DiMartino et al (US 9132993).
Regarding claim 8, Kushmanov et al fails to teach a splice connection. DiMartino et al teaches a lifting device wherein the spreader bar includes a first segment (205) and a second segment (210) coupled using a splice connection (200) (Column 4, lines 43-49; Fig. 4, elements 200, 205, 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of DiMartino et al in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of a splice connection that reduces sagging at the joints during lifting as taught by DiMartino et al (Column 3, lines 56-65).
Regarding claim 9, Kushmanov et al fails to teach a spool segment on the spreader bar. DiMartino et al teaches a lifting device wherein the spreader bar includes a spool segment (505) coupled between a first segment (510) and a second segment (510), the first segment (510) coupled to the spool segment (505) using a first splice connection (500), and the second segment (510) coupled to the spool segment (505) using a second splice connection (500) (Column 7, lines 9-12; Fig. 7, elements 505, 510; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of DiMartino et al in Kushmanov et al to facilitate the creation of a splice connections that can accommodate pipes of varying lengths as taught by DiMartino et al (Column 6, lines 31-35).
PNG
media_image7.png
660
527
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellow in view of Myers et al (US 2017247228).
Regarding claim 16, Bellow fails to teach a compression force. Myers et al teaches a lifting device wherein the sling (12, 14) is configured to provide a compression force that pulls the casing lifting cap (10, 11) onto the end of the section of drilling casing (2) (Paragraph 0004, lines 1-4; Paragraph 0029, lines 1-10; Fig. 1, elements 10, 11, 12, 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Myers et al in Bellow to facilitate the creation of a sling that exerts a compressive force in order which allows the casing to be easily attached and disconnected from the system as taught by Myers et al (Paragraph 0002, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 18, Bellow fails to teach a lug with multiple openings. Myers et al teaches a lifting device with a lug (20) coupled to and protruding from the end plate portion (30), with a first opening (22) and a second opening (37). Myers et al does not disclose a pair of lugs at each end portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the lug, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate certain parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Bellow fails to teach a lug with multiple openings. Myers et al teaches a lifting device with a lug (20) featuring a second opening (37) and a third opening (24). Myers et al does not disclose a pair of lugs at each end portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the lug, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate certain parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 20, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellow in view of Zhang (CN 202569779).
Regarding claim 20, Bellow fails to teach inspection windows. Zhang teaches an end cap (1) with inspection windows (3) disposed in the end plate portion or the annular wall portion to ensure that the end of the section of drilling casing is fully engaged with the casing lifting cap (1) (Page 14, paragraph 1; Fig. 1, elements 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Zhang in Bellow to facilitate the creation of inspection windows that allow for a clear view of the interior of the end cap as taught by Zhang (Page 13, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 21, Bellow in view of Zhang discloses the claimed invention except for two pairs of inspection windows. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the inspection windows, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate certain parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Bellow fails to teach an end cap with inspection windows. Zhang teaches an end cap (1) wherein the inspection windows (3) are aligned with openings in the sleeve lining (Page 15, paragraph 1; Fig. 1, elements 1, 3; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Zhang in Bellow to facilitate the creation of inspection windows that can align with and attach to the end cap as taught by Zhang (Page 15, paragraph 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
568
553
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights