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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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, 2, 5, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7121166 B2 to (Drzewiecki).
Regarding claim 1, (Drzewiecki) discloses a system (a tong assembly 100) comprising: a wrench coupled to a rig floor (Col. 1, lines 29-30), the wrench comprising: a plurality of grippers (die assemblies 216A-C)), wherein a first gripper (216C) of the plurality of grippers is mounted to a piston assembly (hydraulic cylinder 224 via center slider 208)) having a longitudinal center axis; a linkage mechanism (center slider 208, connecting links 212 and clamping arms 210) that couples the plurality of grippers (216A-C) together, the linkage mechanism comprising first (212) and second pivot arms (212); and a plurality of actuators (cylinders 224) that are configured to rotate the first (212) and second pivot arms (212), wherein the first gripper (216C) is moved along the longitudinal center axis in response to rotation of the first and second pivot arms (Fig. 3 to Fig. 4 illustrate a closing of the grippers around a tubular)).
Regarding claim 2, in (Drzewiecki), first and second actuators of the plurality of actuators are configured to extend the plurality of grippers radially inwardly into engagement with a tubular or retract the plurality of grippers radially outwardly away from engagement with the tubular (i.e., a retracting of the hydraulic cylinders 224 withdraws the grippers 216A-C in a radial motion).
Regarding claim 5, in (Drzewiecki), wherein first and second actuators of the plurality of actuators are configured to extend and move the piston assembly toward a center axis of an opening in the wrench, and wherein the first and second actuators are configured to retract and move the piston assembly away from the center axis (as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4, as the hydraulic cylinders 224 are actuated (pressure applied), the piston of the hydraulic cylinders move toward a center axis of an opening in the wrench; thus, when the pressure of the hydraulic cylinders is withdrawn, the piston assembly will retract and move the piston assembly away from the center axis).
Regarding claim 10, (Drzewiecki) discloses a system (a tong assembly 100) comprising: a wrench coupled to a rig floor (Col. 1, lines 29-30), the wrench comprising: a plurality of grippers (die assemblies 216A-C)), wherein a first gripper (216C) of the plurality of grippers is mounted to a piston assembly (piston (not labeled) of hydraulic cylinder 224 via center slider 208)) having a longitudinal center axis; a linkage mechanism (center slider 208, connecting links 212 and clamping arms 210) that couples the plurality of grippers (216A-C) together; and a plurality of actuators (hydraulic cylinders 224), wherein each of the plurality of actuators (224) are configured to apply a force to the linkage mechanism (i.e., extension of the piston of the hydraulic cylinders along the longitudinal axis transfers through center slider 208 to pivot connecting links 212, which transfers to clamping arms 210 such that a force is applied to grippers 216A-B) in a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal center axis, and wherein the linkage mechanism is configured to distribute the force between the plurality of grippers (216A-C).
Regarding claim 11, in (Drzewiecki) the plurality of actuators comprise a first actuator (224) and a second actuator (224), and wherein the linkage mechanism comprises a left pivot arm (clamping arm 210) and a right pivot arm (clamping arm 210)(Figs. 3 and 4).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the salient features of pending claims 1-20 are disclosed in, or may be inferred from, patent claims 1-20 considered as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11719044 B2 to (Mikalsen et al.) provides a robotic system including an electrical clamping system; and, US 10648254 B2 to (Meuth) provides a wrench assembly with a proportional grip circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/
Prosecution Insights