DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is directed to automatically threading a drill stem segment. However, it is unclear how a drill stem segment alone can be threaded. Furthermore, it is unclear if the drill stem segment recited in the preamble is one or both of the distal drill stem segment or the proximal drill stem segment. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as automatically threading drill stem segments (i.e., segments is plural).
Claims 1 and 17 recite “floating a linear thrust of the drill head.” It is unclear what this means. A linear thrust is a linear movement (i.e., a linear push) and not a specific structure. Therefore, “a linear thrust” cannot be floated. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the drill head is floated (i.e., free to move) in a linear manner without restriction.
With respect to claims 1 and 17, it is unclear what threaded engagement is detected since no previous threads are disclosed in the claims and no structure is attached to the term “threaded.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as threaded engagement of the proximal drill stem segment to the distal drill stem segment.
With respect to claims 1 and 17, it is unclear how “no linear motion” can be detected when linear motion is not monitored, determined, or calculated. The location of the drill head is monitored not the motion. However, location is not the same as motion. Furthermore, there is no recitation as to what structure is has no linear motion (i.e., no linear motion of the drill head is detected). For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as actuating occurs when no change in the linear location of the drill head is detected (i.e., no motion/movement).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the proximal drill head" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the proximal drill head" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “actuating a linear bump of the proximal drill head.” However, “a linear bump” is not a structure. A linear bump is a brief application of force (i.e., a jolt) a linear manner/direction. The force is applied in a manner that is sudden (i.e., near instant) and not sustained over a period of time. Therefore, since all that is being claimed is a force, there is no structure to acuate. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as applying a linear bump to the drill head to move the proximal drill stem segment towards the distal drill stem segment.
With respect to claim 4, it is unclear if “a proximal drill stem segment” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 5, it is unclear if “a proximal drill stem segment” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 5, it is unclear if “a drill stem segment” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 4, it is unclear if “a proximal drill stem segment” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 18, it is unclear if “a distal drill stem segment”, “ a vise’, “a proximal drill stem segment”, “a drill head”, and “a linear location” are the same as those recited in claim 17 from which claim 18 depends.
With respect to claim 19, it is unclear if “a drill carriage” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
Claim 10 is directed to automatically unthreading a drill stem segment. However, it is unclear how a drill stem segment alone can be unthreaded. Furthermore, it is unclear if the drill stem segment recited in the preamble is one or both of the distal drill stem segment or the proximal drill stem segment. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as automatically unthreading drill stem segments (i.e., segments is plural).
With respect to claim 10, it is unclear what the reverse thrust is applied to. The claim recites applying a reverse thrust that matches the unthreading linear speed. However, a thrust means to push or shove with force and must be applied to some structure. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the reverse thrust is applied to the drill head. This appears to be the most rational interpretation. However, it is unclear if there is support for this interpretation. Applicant needs to clarify the language and provide explicate support for the amendments.
With respect to claim 11 it is unclear if “a linear location” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 12, it is unclear if “a selected rotational speed” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
With respect to claim 12, it is unclear if “a selected rotational speed” is the same as the one previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being the same structure.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the drill carriage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 15 will be interpreted as depending from claim 14.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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, 3, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US 2008/0185185).
With respect to claim 1: Mitchell discloses a method of automatically threading a drill stem segment, comprising:
holding a distal drill stem segment (22, 24) in a vise (19; ¶ [0014, 0029]);
rotating a proximal drill stem segment (24) adjacent to the distal drill stem segment (¶ [0029]), the proximal drill stem segment coupled to a drill head (17, 18; ¶ [0021-28]);
floating a linear thrust of the drill head (¶ [0019]); and
monitoring a linear location of the drill head to detect thread engagement (¶ [00241]).
Examiner notes that the step of “actuating a linear bump of the proximal drill head towards the distal frill stem if no linear motion is detected” is a conditional limitation in a method claim and therefore not required.
With respect to claim 3: Examiner notes that the step of “repeating actuation of the linear bump and rotating of the proximal drill stem segment periodically until linear motion is detected.” Falls under the conditional limitation of claim 1 and not required.
With respect to claim 6: Mitchell further discloses sensing when a drill stem joint between the proximal drill stem segment and the distal drill stem segment is fully threaded (¶ [0021-29]).
With respect to claim 7: Mitchell further discloses sensing includes detecting a thrust pressure rise (¶ [0021-29]).
With respect to claim 8: Mitchell further discloses sensing includes detecting a torque pressure rise (¶ [0028]).
With respect to claim 9: Mitchell further discloses sensing includes detecting a decrease in linear motion (¶ [0021-29]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Messmer (US 2014/0299313).
With respect to claim 2: Mitchell discloses all aspects of the clamed invention except for sensing a grip of the distal drill stem segment in the vise using a pressure sensor. Messmer teaches it is known in the art to sense a grip of a drill stem segment in a vise using a pressure sensor (¶ [0063]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the pressure sensor of Messmer with the invention of Mitchell with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow for different pipe sizes to be gripped without the need to adjust the vice/clamp assembly (Messmer ¶ [0063]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orban (US 2020/0278193).
With respect to claim 4: Mitchell discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for rotating a proximal drill stem segment includes rotating a sub saver. Orban teaches rotating a proximal drill stem segment (106) includes rotating a sub saver (¶ [0030]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sub saver of Orban with the invention of Mitchell with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow the sub saver to perform its designed function of protecting the threads of the rotating device (i.e., Kelly, top drive, etc.) by allowing the drill stem segments to be connected and disconnected from the sub saver rather than directly connected to the rotation device.
With respect to claim 5: Mitchell discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for rotating a proximal drill stem segment includes rotating a drill stem segment coupled to a sub saver. Orban teaches rotating a proximal drill stem segment includes rotating a drill stem segment (106) coupled to a sub saver (¶ [0030]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sub saver of Orban with the invention of Mitchell with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow the sub saver to perform its designed function of protecting the threads of the rotating device (i.e., Kelly, top drive, etc.) by allowing the drill stem segments to be connected and disconnected from the sub saver rather than directly connected to the rotation device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Mitchell (US 2008/0185185)
With respect to claim 10: Ramos (US 2020/0217151) discloses a method of automatically unthreading a drill stem segment, comprising:
holding a distal drill stem segment (14) in a vise (50; ¶ [0022]) while a proximal drill stem segment (12) is threaded into the distal drill stem segment (¶ [0022, 0024]), the proximal drill stem segment coupled to a drill head (40; 32; ¶ [0019]);
counter rotating the proximal drill stem segment at a selected rotational speed with the drill head (¶ [0020, 0024]); and
monitoring the rotational speed (¶ [0020]) and the linear location of the drill head (¶ [0019]).
The art of record does not teach or make obvious monitoring a linear location of the drill head to detect an unthreading linear speed; recording the unthreading linear speed; and applying a reverse thrust that matches the unthreading linear speed in combination with the other claim limitations and in view of the interpretation as a result of the 112(b) rejections above.
With respect to claim 17: The claim is allowable because the art of record does not teach or make obvious the apparatus with the control circuit being configured to acuate a linear bump as claimed in combination with the other claim limitations. An apparatus claim must be configured to perform all claimed functions, even conditional functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672