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 .
The claims filed 1/30/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Geene et al. (US 20090304451).
CLAIM 1: Geene discloses a pipe (68) suspendable from an elevator (44) in a drill tower. The pipe comprises an end portion which, in operational use, is suspended from a hole of the elevator (see Fig. 8), wherein the end portion has a minimum diameter that is greater than a minimum diameter of the hole of the elevator (Fig. 4a). Wherein the end portion of the pipe comprises sidewalls shaped with an engagement surface for engagement with correspondingly-shaped sidewalls of the hole (Fig. 4a). The engagement surface of the pipe comprises a first part and a second part neighbouring the first part, the first part (28) defining a frustoconical shape having a non-zero first taper angle, and the second part (25) defining a shape having at least partially a non-zero second taper angle that is less than the first taper angle (see paragraph 0176).
CLAIM 2: The first taper angle is such that sidewalls make an angle with a centreline of the pipe between 30 degrees and 60 degrees (see paragraph 0033 disclosing 50 degrees).
CLAIM 3: The second part of the engagement surface defines a further frustoconical shape (see Fig. 4).
CLAIM 4: The second taper angle is such that sidewalls at least locally make an angle with a centreline of the pipe between 14 degrees and 30 degrees (see paragraph 0172).
CLAIM 5: The second part of the engagement surface defines a thoroïde shape which transitions from the first taper angle at a side facing the first part to the second taper angle at an opposite side (see Fig. 4a).
CLAIM 6: The second part of the engagement surface defines a further frustoconical shape (see Fig. 4a).
CLAIM 7: The second taper angle is such that sidewalls at least locally make an angle with a centreline of the pipe between 14 degrees and 30 degrees (see paragraph 0172).
CLAIM 8: A transition part in between the second part and a cylindrical middle part of the pipe (see Fig. 4).
CLAIM 9: A pipe handler assembly comprising the pipe in accordance claim 1 (see paragraph 0151 discussing handling the assembly).
CLAIM 11: Wilson discloses a pipe handler assembly. The assembly comprises the pipe of claim 1 (see above). An elevator comprising a hole from which, in operational use, the pipe is suspended by the end portion thereof (Fig. 4). The hole comprises a minimum diameter that is smaller than the minimum diameter of the end portion of the pipe (see above). The hole further comprises sidewalls shaped with a receiving surface for receiving the sidewalls of the end portion of the pipe (Fig. 4). Receiving surface of the elevator comprises a first part and a second part neighbouring the first part of the receiving surface, the first part of the receiving surface defining a frustoconical shape having a non-zero first taper angle, and the second part of the receiving surface defining a shape having at least partially a non-zero second taper angle less than the first taper angle of the receiving surface (see Fig. 4, conforming to pipe).
CLAIM 12: The first taper angle of the receiving surface of the elevator is equal to the first taper angle of the engagement surface of the pipe, and the second taper angle of the receiving surface is equal to the second taper angle of the engagement surface (see Fig. 4, conforming to the pipe).
CLAIMS 13-20: These methods are inherent to the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geene.
CLAIM 10: Geene discloses the pipe handler assembly according to claim 9 as discussed above.
Geene fails to disclose a drill tower.
Examiner takes official notice that drill towers are well known in the art as means of supporting
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the pipe handler assembly of Geene in a well known drill tower with a reasonable expectation of success as the tower would be used in the standard practice of supporting the pipe and drilling system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Terminal Disclaimer, filed 1/30/26, with respect to the 101 rejections of 12/4/25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections of 12/4/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/26 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Greene fails to disclose the engagement surface as described in claim 1. Applicant asserts that as the section of Greene does not touch the supports, it does not teach the second part of the engagement surface. This is an attempt to import limitations from the specification that do not appear in the claims. The support structures are not claimed, so the interaction between the pipe and support structure cannot be claimed. The claimed “for engagement with correspondingly-shaped sidewalls of the hole” is functional language. The term “engagement surface” is defined in the claim as having the first part and second part neighboring the first part. The claimed physical limitations are present in the prior art. Further, the angled portion of Greene is capable of engaging the support, so it teaches the functional limitation even if Greene does not actively teach the connection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights