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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458).
Regarding claim 1, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) a retractable quill 100 (see par. [0037]) for use with a pipe or vessel containing a fluid [0034], the pipe or vessel being configured to receive a hollow rod of the retractable quill at a reception point (as shown in Figs. 3A-B), the retractable quill comprising:
a cylinder 110 [0037] having a first end (left end in Fig. 1) and a second end (right end in Fig. 1);
the hollow rod 120 [0038] slidably disposed within the cylinder 110 (as shown in Fig. 1), the hollow rod 120 having a first end (right end of 120 that inserts into the pipe: see Figs. 1-3) configured to extend through the second end of the cylinder 110 (as shown in Fig. 3B) and be inserted into the pipe or vessel at the reception point in fluid communication with the fluid (as shown in Fig. 3B; [0049]); and
a drive system (see pars. [0015] and [0058]) configured to move the hollow rod 120 within the cylinder 110 between an extended position where the first end of the hollow rod is inserted into the pipe or vessel and within the fluid (as shown in Fig. 3B) and a retracted position where the first end of the hollow rod 120 is outside of the pipe or vessel (as shown in Fig. 3A);
wherein the retractable quill is configured to attach to the pipe or vessel (as shown in Figs. 3A-B) and encompass the reception point (i.e. the quill 100 has a flange at the attachment area that surrounds the reception point: see Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 2, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) the second end of the cylinder 110 is configured to attach to the pipe or vessel and encompass the reception point (i.e. the cylinder 110 has a flange at the attachment area that surrounds the reception point: see Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 4, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) an isolation valve 210 [0037] connected to the second end of the cylinder 110 (as shown in Figs. 3A-B), wherein the isolation valve 210 is configured to attach to the pipe or vessel and encompass the reception point (i.e. the valve 210 has a flange at the attachment area that surrounds the reception point: see Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 6, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) the pipe or vessel is pressurizable [0037], and the retractable quill is configured to maintain a positive pressure seal when the hollow rod is moved between the extended position and the retracted position (see pars. [0048 and [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) the drive system is a hydraulic drive, a pneumatic drive, or an electrical drive (see pars. [0015] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) the hollow rod 120/520 [0062] comprises a first rod 522 and a second rod 523 that are detachably connected to one another (given enough force, the rods 522/523 could be detached from one another).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458) in view of Welker et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0071484).
Regarding claim 7, Bueno is applied as above, and discloses the retractable quill maintains a positive pressure seal when the fluid is pressurized (see pars. [0048 and [0066]).
Bueno does not disclose sampling at a particular pressure value.
Welker discloses sampling at a pressure of up to at least 2200 PSI (i.e. 1000 psi: [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s device so that the retractable quill maintains a positive pressure seal when the fluid is at a pressure of up to at least 2200 PSI, as taught by Welker.
Such a modification would be the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way – see MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claims 8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458) in view of Pelleteir et al. (U.S. Pub. 2007/0205021).
Regarding claim 8, Bueno is applied as above, but does not disclose the retractable quill is an injection quill or a sampling quill.
Pelleteir discloses (Figs. 1-2) the retractable quill 150 is an injection quill or a sampling quill (see pars. [0029] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s device so that the retractable quill is an injection quill or a sampling quill, as taught by Pelleteir.
Such a modification would be the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; and would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 16, Bueno is applied as above, but does not disclose an RFID tag.
Pelleteir discloses (Figs. 1-2) an RFID tag [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s device to include an RFID tag, as taught by Pelleteir.
Such a modification would allow additional data to be carried to the user along with the sample (Pelleteir: [0039]).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Bueno is applied as above, and discloses opening the isolation valve 210 (as shown in Figs. 3A-B; [0037]); moving the hollow rod 120 from the retracted position to the extended position using the drive system (as shown in Figs. 3A-B); moving the hollow rod 120 from the extended position to the retracted position using the drive system (when retracted: see Figs. 3A-3B; [0053]); and closing the isolation valve 120 [0053].
Bueno does not disclose injecting a chemical into the fluid or removing a sample from the fluid.
Pelleteir discloses (Figs. 1-2) injecting a chemical into the fluid or removing a sample from the fluid (see pars. [0029] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s method to include injecting a chemical into the fluid or removing a sample from the fluid, as taught by Pelleteir.
Such a modification would be the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; and would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(D).
Bueno also does not disclose the drive system is remote-controlled and/or automated, and further wherein the isolation valve is remote-controlled and/or automated.
However, such a modification would be to automate a manual process, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(III).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s method so that the drive system is remote-controlled and/or automated, and further wherein the isolation valve is remote-controlled and/or automated.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Bueno discloses (Figs. 1-10B) the pipe or vessel is pressurizable [0037], and the retractable quill is configured to maintain a positive pressure seal when the hollow rod is moved between the extended position and the retracted position (see pars. [0048 and [0066]).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Bueno does not disclose the drive system is remote-controlled and/or automated.
However, such a modification would be to automate a manual process, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(III).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s method so that the drive system is remote-controlled and/or automated.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458) in view of Fukushima (U.S. Pub. 2020/0393425).
Regarding claim 11, Bueno is applied as above, but does not disclose the electrical drive is a servo drive.
Fukushima discloses the electrical drive is a servo drive [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s device so that the electrical drive is a servo drive, as taught by Fukushima.
Such a modification would be the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458) in view of St Amant, III et al. (U.S. Patent 9,410,871).
Regarding claim 14, Bueno is applied as above, but does not disclose the isolation valve is a double block and bleed ball valve.
St Amant, III discloses (Figs. 1 and 7) the isolation valve is a double block and bleed ball valve (i.e. DBB: col. 5, lines 20-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s device so that the isolation valve is a double block and bleed ball valve, as taught by St Amant, III.
Such a modification would be the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueno (U.S. Pub. 2019/0316458) in view of Lantz (U.S. Patent 4,934,200).
Regarding claim 15, Bueno is applied as above, but does not disclose one or more position sensors to track the position of the hollow rod as it moves between the extended position and the retracted position.
Lantz discloses (Fig. 9) one or more position sensors 98/99 (col. 7, lines 54-59) to track the position of the hollow rod as it moves between the extended position and the retracted position (as shown in Fig. 9; col. 7, lines 54-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bueno’s device to include one or more position sensors to track the position of the hollow rod as it moves between the extended position and the retracted position, as taught by Lantz.
Such a modification would give better control over the quill/sampling tube by providing precise information on the position of the element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852