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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the previously presented specification objection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claim(s) have been considered but are moot 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.
To the extent that applicant’s arguments are applicable to the new prior art cited below, it is noted that the claim is an apparatus claim and does not require the specific methodological steps of loading from a particular end. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, see MPEP 2114(II).
The reliance on the drawings is also appropriate to cite to teach the functional limitations recited. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevithick (US 20120167485 A1), in view of Riel (US 20060243490 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Trevithick teaches a drilling rig (title), comprising:
a support frame (Fig 2, frame 606) having a toothed rack (Fig 2, rack 618) that extends from a first end (Fig 2, first end extending from reference numeral 618 to 604) to a second end of the support frame (Fig 2, second end from the end of 618 to 602);
a first carrier (Fig 2, carrier 210) movably disposed on the support frame between the first end and the second end for forward and reverse movement on the support frame (Para 0095), the first carrier includes a first carrier platform disposed on the toothed rack (Fig 2, platform on which 612 are mounted) and a plurality of first carrier drive components (Fig 2, components 614 and 612) on the first carrier platform that are in driving engagement with the toothed rack for driving the first carrier in forward and reverse directions on the support frame (Para 0095, “Motor 614 rotates pinion gear 616 which is engaged with rack gear 618, forcing longitudinal movement of carriage 610”); and
the first carrier and the support frame are configured to allow the first carrier to be driven off or loaded from the first end or the second end (Fig 2, the end at 602 is open and the sizing of the carrier 610 would at least permit its loading from that end).
Trevithick is silent on the drilling rig system being a horizontal directional drilling rig.
Riel teaches the drilling rig system being a horizontal directional drilling rig (Title, Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Trevithick by having drilling rig system be a horizontal directional drilling rig as disclosed by Riel because “It would be desirable if a drilling assembly could be provided that is adapted to perform vertical and horizontal drilling applications” (Para 0007).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevithick (US 20120167485 A1), in view of Riel (US 20060243490 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Trevithick is silent on comprising a wheel assembly mounted on the support frame, and the wheel assembly and the support frame are configured to allow the wheel assembly to be driven off or loaded from the first end or the second end.
Wood teaches comprising a wheel assembly mounted on the support frame, and the wheel assembly and the support frame are configured to allow the wheel assembly to be driven off or loaded from the first end or the second end (Abstract, wheeled dolly assemblies may be selective attached/detached from the support frame which may be construed as additionally including 40; see also Column 3, lines 37-44).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Trevithick by having the recited wheel assembly and particulars of the support frame as disclosed by Wood because it would allow for the wheeled assemblies to “be changed out for compliance with regulations and road conditions” (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18-26 are allowed.
Claim 28 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: As discussed Trevithick (US 20120167485 A1), in view of Riel (US 20060243490 A1) are the best available combination of references. The first carrier of claim 27 is construable as a traverse carrier. Claims 18, 23, and 28 each recite a second carrier/vise carrier is movably disposed on the support frame and in engagement with the toothed rack. Trevithick makes no such disclosure of a second moveable carrier or vise carrier with the recited particulars. The references discussed in the preceding action were considered and identified as relevant to the claimed invention. However, individually or in combination do not remedy the deficiencies of this combination of references and render the claim limitations identified and discussed as obvious without the benefit of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676