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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/8/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11933117 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s filing dated 9/8/25 is entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Triche (US 20180202244 A1) was the reference cited as the primary reference in the rejection below.
Applicant first argues that the elevator identified in Triche is not an elevator. Applicant presents a particular understanding of an elevator. “Elevators” is defined as: “Clamps that grip a stand of casing, tubing, drill pipe, or sucker rods so that the stand can be raised from or lowered into the hole” (see Drilling Matters glossary, provided). The structure identified in Triche, element 198, broad and reasonably meet this definition. See also Para 0136 which described this functionality which characterizes an “elevator”.
Second applicant argues that the elements 200 are “not a lift member from which an elevator is suspended”. Applicant appears to be arguing a narrower conception of what is required by a “lift member” to suggest that the rods 200 are not a lift member. The examiner notes that claims are examined under their broadest reasonable interpretation and there is nothing in the claim that would preclude this interpretation. As seen in the movement between Figures 5-6, but virtue of its coupling to elevator 198, 200 functions to lift 198 relative to other components in the system.
Applicant appears to find issue with the elements identified as being sub-elements of what Trische describes as CRE 118. However, nothing precludes the examiner’s interpretation presented. Examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The examiner respectfully notes for applicant the structural particulars e.g. the hook feature of the lift member, structural particulars of links 225, etc. present opportunities to differentiate from the present interpretation of Trische.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Triche (US 20180202244 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Triche teaches a tubular compensator assembly, comprising:
a lift member (Fig 5-6, member 200) from which an elevator is suspended (Fig 5-6, elevator 198);
a support member (Fig 5-6, element 132 and 174a); and
a piston and cylinder assembly (Fig 5-6, element 196) adapted to selectively raise and lower the lift member relative to the support member (Fig 5-6, lift 200 is raised/lowered relative to support 132), wherein extension of the piston and cylinder assembly acts to raise the lift member relative to the support member (Fig 6, extended position seen), and wherein retraction of the piston and cylinder assembly acts to lower the lift member relative to the support member (Fig 5, retracted position seen).
Regarding claim 2, Triche teaches wherein the lift member extends through the support member (Fig 5-6, lift 200 extends through at least a portion of the support member 174a).
Regarding claim 4, Triche teaches wherein the support member is attached to a distal end of the piston of the piston and cylinder assembly (Fig 5-6, support member as defined is at least directly attached to a distal end of piston 206).
Regarding claim 5, Triche teaches a swivel which permits rotation of the lift member (Fig 7A-7B, pivot coupling indicated at 202 which permits rotation/pivoting of lift member 200).
Regarding claim 6, Triche teaches wherein the lift member is rotatable relative to the support member (Fig 7A-7B, pivot coupling indicated at 202 which permits relative rotation/pivoting of lift member 200).
Regarding claim 7, Triche teaches a spacer member disposed below the support member (Fig 2, member 109 results in spacing between 118 and rig floor).
Regarding claim 8, Triche teaches a guide member coupled to the support member (Fig 3B, guide 176a/b allows CRE 118 to be guided/controlled by hoist).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights