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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: While the first ram and second ram are identified in part of the descriptive portion of the specification; the first ram and second ram are not by reference to the drawings, designating the part or parts therein to which the terms applies.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first ram and second ram must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thorson et al. (US 2013/0341831 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Thorson discloses a method of automatically rotating a plurality of jaws about a longitudinal axis to expand an end of a pipe. The method includes moving a spindle 8 – (construed as advancing a ram) to a position towards a set of jaws 24 and cap 20 assembly – (the set of jaws and cap are construed as an expander head) where at this position the jaws are rotated, see at least FIG. 4 and [0037] – (construed as a first distance to rotate an expander head in a first rotational direction); and moving the spindle axially further towards the set of jaws causes the jaws to expand radially, see at least FIG. 5, [0038] – (construed as advancing the ram a second distance so that the ram causes head segments of the expander head to expand radially).
Regarding claim 2, Thorson discloses the jaws/cap assembly/expander head rotates in the first rotational direction, the jaws 24 – (construed as head segments) are in a closed position where each one of the jaws/head segments contacts an adjacent one of the jaws/head segments, see at least FIG 4.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorson et al. (US 2013/0341831 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 12, Thorson discloses a method of automatically rotating a plurality of jaws about a longitudinal axis to expand an end of a pipe. The method includes a set of jaws 24 disposed in a retracted position where adjacent segments thereof contact each other, see at least FIG. 2 – (construed as radially retracting the head segments to a closed position where each one of the head segments contacts an adjacent one of the head segments); moving a spindle 8 – (construed as advancing a ram) to a position towards the set of jaws 24 and cap 20 assembly – (the set of jaws and cap are construed as an expander head) where at this position the jaws are rotated, see at least FIG. 4 and [0037] – (construed as a first distance to rotate an expander head in a first rotational direction a predetermined amount to rotate the head segments the predetermined amount); and moving the spindle axially further towards the set of jaws causes the jaws to expand radially, see at least FIG. 5, [0038] – (construed as advancing the ram a second distance that radially expands the head segments).
Thorson does not explicitly disclose a technique of stopping rotation of the expander head beyond the predetermined amount. However, as Thorson discloses rotating the jaws and cap assembly it is considered that stopping rotation of the expander head beyond the predetermined amount, involves only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thorson’s rotation scheme to include stopping rotation of the expander head beyond the predetermined amount; as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Thorson discloses driving an expander to contact the head segments to radially expand the head segments, the expander moving past a distal end of each of the head segments, see at least FIG. 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11, 14-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record Thorson does teach or reasonably suggest the use of a drive collar having lugs, and the expander head includes slots; a first ram and a second ram; a shuttle cam, the method further comprising: rotating the shuttle cam that transmits torque to the drive collar and rotates the expander head in the first rotational direction; starting a motor based on a user input from a trigger to pump hydraulic fluid into an actuator of the expanding tool; actuating the motor to continue pumping the hydraulic fluid based on the user input from the trigger exceeding a predetermined time period; and advancing the ram coupled to an expander using the hydraulic fluid to radially expand the head segments; sensing a pressure with a pressure transducer that is in communication with a cavity that receives the ram; moving a cam roller along a groove defined by a shuttle cam with the second ram to rotated the shuttle cam and transmit a torque from the shuttle cam to a drive collar; determining the ram is in the home position using a position sensor; and reenabling a motor and a user input for a subsequent extension of the ram; extending a ram away from a home position to rotate an expander head from a first rotational position to a second rotational position; continuing to extend the ram to cause the expander head to expand while the expander head is in the second rotational position; and retracting the ram to the home position while the expander head remains in the second rotational position; extending the ram away from the home position to rotate the expander head from the second rotational position to a third rotational position; and continuing to extend the ram to cause the expander head to expand while the expander head is in the third rotational position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights