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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 11/04/2025. Claims 1—3, 5—13, 15—16, and 18—22 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 06/19/2024, 08/07/2024, 04/24/2025, 06/12/2025, and 11/04/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 11/04/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 9—15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4, 6, and 9—15 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 11/04/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—4, 7—8, and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in-part in overcoming the prior art rejection of record.
Claim 1 is amended to recite new limitations which were not previously presented thereby necessitating new grounds for rejection. As such, the rejection of independent claim 1 and the associated dependent claims, with the exception of claim 7, is modified as provided below under the revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to Angelle ‘736 as provided below. The subject matter of claim 7 is currently indicated allowable over the prior art of record.
The arguments set forth regarding the rejection of claim 16 is not persuasive. The Office Action at page 8 states “there is no indication in Angelle or the reasoning of the Office that the provided ‘visual indication of the position of slip 17’ is monitored, let alone being monitored to adjust the slips 122 of Angelle.” To start, the argument that the citation of Angelle which states “a fin 25 on each slip 17 that is movably received within an aperture 27 in the timing ring 18 to provide a visual indication of the position of the slip 17,” does not read on “monitoring respective positions of the three slips assemblies,” is not persuasive. Angelle expressly states a specific structural feature of the apparatus (e.g., fin 25) which is monitored for a specific purpose (e.g., provide visual indication of the position of the slips 17). As such, it is understood that, at some point in the operation of the apparatus, the position of the slips of Angelle are monitored. Moreover, the limitation directed to the monitoring is not drafted in a manner which requires a more specific or explicit teaching than the above mentioned citation. Furthermore, nothing in the claim requires that the limitation directed to adjusting the slips is performed in response to, or even functionally linked with, the limitation directed to monitoring the position of the slips. For example, as claimed, the adjusting step can actually be performed before the monitoring ever occurs. As such, the arguments on page 8 with respect to claim 16 address limitations which are not actually required by claim 16. The arguments set forth with respect to claim 19 incorporate a similar deficiency insofar as, nothing in claim 19 would require that the rods 119 of Angelle would need to be adjustable relative to one another.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—6, and 8 is modified as provided below while the rejection of claims 16 and 18—20 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 11/04/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 9—12 and 14—15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While the inclusion of the new limitations requires a modified rejection to address the amended material, the limitations do not provide for structural features which distinguish the instant claims from the prior art of record. For example, the limitation “wherein the slip assemblies are configured such that frictional forces acting on the intermediate wedge exceed an upward force caused by differing angles of the first inclined plane and the second inclined plane,” is a feature which is inherent to the structure of Halse. Whether or not Halse expressly states that the configuration performs the aforementioned function, the configuration of Halse is configured to perform the function. Moreover, all of the structural limitations recited in claims 9—12 and 14—15 are disclosed in Halse such that any functional behavior associated with the rejected structures would also inherently be anticipated. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection to claims 9—12 and 14—15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained as modified below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation “a radially inner portion of respective ones of of the size adjusting systems,” which should likely only recite “of” a single time. 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.
(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—3, 5—6, 8, and 21—22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Angelle et al., hereinafter “Angelle ‘736” (US 20140360736 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Angelle ‘736 discloses [a] drilling system (see FIG. 1) comprising: a tubular slip (gripping assembly 300 in FIG. 3, which is equivalent to gripping apparatus 107) for a drill rig, the tubular slip comprising: a plurality of size adjusting systems (retractable jaws 308A—H of FIG. 3) radially arranged about a well access hole of the drill rig and configured to cooperate to adjust a diameter of a through opening of the tubular slip (bore 302 of FIG. 5) to accommodate various tubular sizes (see retractable jaws 308 of FIG. 6A vs. 6B); a plurality of slip components (carrier 344 and die 346 as depicted in FIG. 4C and 5) comprising a wedge (both carrier 344 and die 346 have shapes/profiles which include wedge portions, see FIG. 5) arranged on a radially inner portion of respective ones of the size adjusting systems (see FIG. 5) and configured to cooperate to further constrict the diameter of the through opening when a drill string is suspended by the tubular slip (para. [0037], “[a]s disclosed, gripping assembly 300 is constructed as a ‘chuck spider,’ in that engagement of jaws of gripping assembly 300 into and out of a central bore 302 is infinitely adjustable from fully retracted to fully engaged, similar to a chuck of a machinists lathe or a handheld power drill.”); and a guide (main body 306 and base ring 304, see FIGs. 4E and 4F), configured to receive the drill string generally centered along a center axis of the well access hole (main body 306 and base ring 304 can receive a tubular through bore 302), wherein the guide is configured to prevent the drill string from contacting the slip components when the size adjusting systems are in a retracted position (as depicted in FIG. 6A, retractable jaws 308, carrier 344, and die 346 are retracted behind the threshold of base ring 304 such that a tubular will contact base ring 304 before contacting the jaw assemblies 308), wherein the guide defines a plurality of openings positioned to allow the slip components to pass through (slots 350 in main body 306, see FIG. 4E).
Regarding claim 2, Angelle ‘736 discloses wherein each of the plurality of size adjusting systems (retractable jaws 308A—H of FIG. 3) are configured to travel between the retracted position (see FIG. 6A), wherein the respective slip components are not contacting the drill string, and an engaged position (see FIG. 6B), wherein the respective slip components are contacting the drill string (para. [0037], “[a]s disclosed, gripping assembly 300 is constructed as a ‘chuck spider,’ in that engagement of jaws of gripping assembly 300 into and out of a central bore 302 is infinitely adjustable from fully retracted to fully engaged, similar to a chuck of a machinists lathe or a handheld power drill.”).
Regarding claim 3, Angelle ‘736 discloses wherein the movement of the size adjusting systems serves the function of both: engaging and disengaging the drill string (para. [0037], “[a]s disclosed, gripping assembly 300 is constructed as a ‘chuck spider,’ in that engagement of jaws of gripping assembly 300 into and out of a central bore 302 is infinitely adjustable from fully retracted to fully engaged, similar to a chuck of a machinists lathe or a handheld power drill.”); and accommodating various tubular sizes (the retractable jaws 308 can fit multiple tubular sizes in accordance with what fits between the fully retracted and fully engaged positions which is described as “infinitely adjustable” in para. [0037] provided above).
Regarding claim 5, Angelle ‘736 discloses wherein a radially inner surface of the slip component is configured to engage with the drill string (para. [0042], “[a]s shown, each jaw assembly 308 comprises a jaw body 342, a carrier 344, and a die 346 comprising a plurality of hardened gripping teeth configured to “bite” into and retain an outer profile of a tubular within bore 302.”), wherein the tubular slip is configured to engage with a range of tubular sizes spanning at least 4 inches (para. [0046], “in one embodiment, a plurality of jaw assemblies 308 may be sized and configured to grip drill pipe between 10-15 cm (4-6 inches) in diameter, whereas another set of jaw assemblies 308 may be sized to grip drill pipe between 15-30 cm (6-12 inches) in diameter.”).
Regarding claim 6, Angelle ‘736 discloses wherein the radially inner surface of the slip component is configured to be generally parallel to the drill string across the range of tubular sizes (see FIG. 4C, the die portion 346 is configured such that a surface is parallel to bore 302).
Regarding claim 8, Angelle ‘736 discloses the drill rig (see FIG. 1), the drill rig comprising: a drill floor (rig floor 109, FIG. 1) supported by a support structure (see FIG. 1, right floor is supported by scaffolding/support pillars), wherein the tubular slip is arranged on the drill floor (gripping apparatus 107, equivalent to gripping apparatus 300, is disposed in the rig floor).
Regarding claim 21, Angelle ‘736 discloses in the engaged position, the slip components extend radially inward through the openings (see FIG. 6A compared to FIG. 6B).
Regarding claim 22, Angelle ‘736 discloses wherein: the guide is substantially fixed relative to the well access hole (in FIG. 1, gripping apparatus 107 is disposed within the drill floor 109 of drill rig 101 and is therefore substantially fixed relative to the hole).
Claim(s) 9—12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Halse (US 20080216999 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Halse discloses [a] tubular slip (a wedge device) for a drill rig, the tubular slip comprising: two or more slip assemblies (elements 12, 16, arranged around a perimeter of a well access hole of the drill rig (para. [0029]—[0030], “a wedge device positioned in a deck 2, and which comprises an annular mounting element 4 and a plurality of main wedges 6 encircling the vertical axis 8 of the wedge device 1... The annular mounting element 4 connected to the drill floor 2…”), each of the slip assemblies including: an outer wedge (mounting block 12, see FIG. 2), generally fixed relative to the well access hole (mounting block 12 is attached to annular mounting element 4 which is disposed in the drill floor 2), wherein a radially inward portion of the outer wedge includes a first inclined plane facing radially inward, wherein a bottom portion of the first inclined plane is radially inward compared to a top portion of the first inclined plane (see FIG. 2 where mounting block 12 has a slanted face which is diameter at the top of the figure and a narrower at the bottom of the figure); an intermediate wedge (main wedge 6, see FIGs. 2 and 3), wherein a radially outward portion of the intermediate wedge is slidably engaged with the first inclined plane (see the position of main wedge 6 in FIG. 2 compared to FIG. 3 where the main wedge 6 is longitudinally displaced along mounting block 12), wherein the intermediate wedge moves towards a center axis of the well access hole when the intermediate wedge slides downward (the longitudinal displacement of main wedge 6 depicted in FIG. 2 versus FIG. 3 is in the downward direction), wherein a radially inward portion of the intermediate wedge includes a second inclined plane facing radially inward (main wedge 6 has a slanted face which is slated in the same direction as mounting block 12), wherein a bottom portion of the second inclined plane is radially inward compared to a top portion of the second inclined plane; and an inner wedge (auxiliary wedge 18), wherein a radially outward portion of the inner wedge is slidably engaged with the second inclined plane (FIG. 6 depicts auxiliary wedge 18 depressed downwards), wherein the inner wedge moves towards the center axis of the well access hole when the inner wedge slides downward (See FIG. 6 which depicts wedge assembly 36), wherein the slip assemblies are configured such that frictional forces acting on the intermediate wedge exceed an upward force caused by differing angles of the first inclined plane and the second inclined plane (this limitation is directed to an intended use/intended functionality which is inherent in the structure of Halse. The limitation does not succeed in reciting physical features/structural limitations of the apparatus which differ from those of Halse. As such, Halse reads on the foregoing limitation whether or not the limitation is explicitly stated in Halse because the structure of Halse is configured to function in this manner.).
Regarding claim 10, Halse discloses wherein the slip assemblies comprise an actuator (hydraulic cylinder 16), wherein a first end of the actuator is coupled to the outer wedge and a second end of the actuator is coupled to the intermediate wedge (see FIG. 2, where hydraulic cylinder 16 is connected on each side to mounting block 12 and main wedge 6, respectively), wherein the actuator is configured to control a position of the intermediate wedge along the first inclined plane between a retracted position (para. [0032], “[t]he hydraulic cylinder 16 is connected to a hydraulic control system (not shown) by hose and pipe connections (not shown), and is arranged in a controlled and synchronous fashion to move the main wedge 6 along the main guide 14, between a retracted, open position, see FIG. 3, and an extended, closed position, see FIG. 5.”), wherein the slip assembly is not contacting a drill string, to an engaged position, wherein the slip assembly is contacting the drill string ([ara. [0041], “[t]o grip a pipe 24, three or six main wedges 6, all depending on the pipe dimensions, are synchronously displaced towards the pipe 24 by respective hydraulic cylinders 16, whereby the clamps 22 grip around the pipe 24.”).
Regarding claim 11, Halse discloses a spring element (compression spring 26), configured to bias the inner wedge in an upward direction along the second inclined plane (see FIG. 6 where compression spring 26 biases auxiliary wedge 18.).
Regarding claim 12, Halse discloses wherein a second angle (angle b as depicted in FIG. 6) of the second inclined plane relative to the center axis of the well access hole is less than a first angle of the first inclined plane (angle a as depicted in FIG. 6) relative to the center axis of the well access hole (see angles a and b as depicted in FIG. 6 where the slant face of mounting block 12 is steeper than the slant face of main wedge 6).
Regarding claim 15, Halse discloses wherein being generally fixed relative to the well access hole includes being generally fixed relative to a turntable of the drill rig (see FIG. 2, where mounting block 12 is attached to annular mounting element 4 which is disposed in the drill floor 2.).
Claim(s) 16 and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Angelle et al., hereinafter “Angelle ‘558,” (US 20100116558 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Angelle discloses [a] method of using a tubular slip, the method comprising: positioning, using an elevator (elevator assembly 10), a drill string at a specified position within the tubular slip (both the spider and the elevator assembly have slips where the structures of slips 17 are understood to be analogous to slips 122) while the tubular slip is in a released configuration (see FIG. 2, para. [0038], “FIG. 2 is a top perspective view of an elevator assembly supporting one embodiment of an adjustable guide and a cooperating spider there below and supporting another embodiment of an adjustable guide.”); engaging three slip assemblies (elements 74, 75, and 72 of spider 60 as depicted in FIG. 7 which are understood to be analogous slips 17 with fin 25 and gripping dies 22 of elevator assembly 10) of the tubular slip with the drill string (para. [0039], “FIG. 3 is an enlarged top perspective view of the adjustable guide supported by the elevator assembly in FIG. 2 after the timing ring is lowered to move the slips to an engaged position.”; para. [0054], “a cooperating spider assembly 60, that is generally aligned with and cooperates with the elevator assembly 10.”; para. [0060], “FIG. 3 reveals a plurality of gripping dies 22 fastened to the faces of the slips 17.” As depicted in the figures, there are at least 3 slip assemblies); centering the drill string within a well access hole (para. [0050], “[t]he guide inserts are shown in their retracted position to receive and generally center a pipe connection having a diameter that corresponds to a pipe string of the first diameter shown in FIGS. 5A and 6A.”) including: monitoring respective positions of the three slip assemblies (para. [0060], “FIG. 3 also illustrates a fin 25 on each slip 17 that is movably received within an aperture 27 in the timing ring 18 to provide a visual indication of the position of the slip 17.” Fin 25, which shows the visual indication of the slip 17 is analogous to element 75 of FIG. 7 which relates to the spider assembly 60); and adjusting the three slip assemblies so that the drill string is centered within the well access hole (the slips 22 engage with the pipe in the spider 60 from a plurality of directions such that it is centered within the tool); and disengaging the elevator to transfer a weight of the drill string to the tubular slip (para. [0076], “the rods 19 that operate the timing ring 18 of the elevator assembly 10 (see FIG. 2), the rods 69 that operate the timing ring 68 of the spider 60 may also be pneumatically, electrically, hydraulically or mechanically powered between the extended position (not shown) and the retracted position shown in FIGS. 8A-8C.”).
Regarding claim 18, Angelle discloses wherein monitoring a position of the three slip assemblies includes monitoring respective actuators of the three slip assemblies (para. [0076], “[t]he timing ring 68 is positionable, along with the base and the adjustable guide 60 a, by extension and retraction of rods 69. It should be understood that the rods 69 may be positionable using an actuator. For example, an actuator that may be fluidically, electrically, or mechanically powered to lift and retract the slips 122 from a seated position, and/or to lower and engage the slips 122 with a pipe string 88, as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B.”).
Regarding claim 19, Angelle discloses wherein centering the drill string within the well access hole includes engaging the three slip assemblies (the slip assemblies are engaged with the pipe after the pipe is centered in the hole using the insert guide 80) so that each of the slip assemblies starts a specified distance from a center axis of the well access hole and travels at a same rate toward the center axis of the well access hole (as depicted in FIGs. 1A and 1B, the timing ring (e.g., 118 or 68) controls the movement of the slips in accordance with the extension of the rods (e.g., 119 or 69).).
Regarding claim 20, Angelle discloses engaging one or more additional slip assemblies following centering the drill string within the well access hole (Angelle discloses more than three slip assemblies where additional slip assemblies function together with the at least three slip assemblies once the slips are actuated thereby meeting the limitations of the claim).
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.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Halse (US 20080216999 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Halse may not explicitly disclose the recited ranges where the second angle is between 9 and 14 degrees and wherein the first angle is between 14 and 35 degrees. However, Halse discloses preferred embodiments which include angles which are in scope with the recited ranges. For example, discloses “[i]n this preferred exemplary embodiment, the angle a is 20 degrees,” (para. [0031]) and “[i]n this preferred exemplary embodiment, the angle b is 5 degrees” (para. [0033]). As such Halse discloses the claimed invention except for the specific ranges recited in claim 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized angles to configure the apparatus, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
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 URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676