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 Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on 12/03/2025. Claims 1—7, 9—18, 20, and 22—24 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of US Patent Application Number 18/626,981 filed on 04/04/2024, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 1/14/2025, 7/23/2025, and 12/04/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/03/2025 in response to the Objection to FIGs. 1—9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings of FIGs. 1—9 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/03/2025 in response to the provisional double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Terminal Disclaimer filed 12/03/2025 resolves the double patenting rejection which is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/03/2025 in response to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/03/2025 in response to the rejection of claims 1—6, 10—11, 20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1—6 and 10—11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn and the claims are indicated allowable along with reasons for allowance provided below.
The rejection of claims 20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn due to the amendment which incorporates the subject matter of claim 21 (e.g., which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103); however the arguments set forth against the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are not persuasive. The Office Action at page 10 states “there is no indication in Angelle 558’ 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 558’.” Examiner notes the citation of reference for Angelle ‘558 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.” As such, Angelle expressly states a specific structural feature of the apparatus (e.g., fin 25) which exists at least in part for the purpose of being a visual indicator for the slip position (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 558’ are monitored. Moreover, the limitation directed to the monitoring, as claimed, is not drafted in a manner which requires a more specific or explicit teaching than the above mentioned citation. For example, 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. Further to this point, as claimed, the adjusting step can actually be performed before the monitoring ever occurs. As such, the arguments on page 10 with respect to amended claim 20 address limitations which are not actually required by amended claim 20. The arguments set forth with respect to claim 23 incorporate a similar deficiency insofar as, nothing in claim 23 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—6 and 10—11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn and the claims are indicated allowable. The rejection of claims 20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn and replaced with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/03/2025 in response to the rejection of claims 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn and the claims are indicated allowable along with reasons for allowance provided below.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/03/2025 in response to the rejection of claims 12—14 and 17—19 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 12—14 and 17—19 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 12—14 and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained as modified below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 recites the limitation “two engagement arms,” and subsequently recites the limitation “the engagement arms,” where any recitation of “the engagement arms,” should recite “the two engagement arms.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a face of the engagement arms,” which should likely read something similar to “each face of the two engagement arms,” or “a face of each of the two engagement arms.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 12—14 and 17—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Halse (US 20080216999 A1) in view of Published US Patent Application to Angelle et al., hereinafter “Angelle ‘558,” (US20100116558 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Halse discloses two or more slip assemblies (element 12 and 16), arranged around a perimeter of a housing (see FIG. 1, the slip assemblies are arranged around an inner circumference of annular mounting element) 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. See FIGs. 2, 4, and 6 of Halse; para. [0043], “[i]n the event of a loss of hydraulic pressure to the cylinders 16, the auxiliary cylinders 18 will still be pulled downwards in the main wedges 6 due to the weight of the pipe 24 suspended from the clamps 22, thus gripping around the pipe 24 with an even stronger grip.”).
Halse may not explicitly disclose that the tubular gripping assembly is a tubular elevator; however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the slip configuration of a spider assembly as an elevator assembly. For example, Published US Patent Application to Angelle ‘558 (US 20080216999 A1), which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, teaches a spider assembly and an elevator assembly with equivalent and interchangeable configurations. As such, it would be obvious to modify the design of an elevator according to the design of a spider.
Regarding claim 13, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches 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 14, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches 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 17, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches 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 18, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 may not explicitly teach 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).
Claim(s) 15—16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Halse (US 20080216999 A1) in view of Published US Patent Application to Angelle et al., hereinafter “Angelle ‘558,” (US20100116558 A1) as applied above to claim 12, and in further view of Published US Patent Application to Angelle et al., hereinafter “Angelle ‘575,” (US 20150240575 A1) .
Regarding claim 15, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches further comprising the housing, the housing comprising: one or more hinges (Halse, para. [0030], “[t]he annular mounting element 4 connected to the drill floor 2 consists of two pieces and is provided with connecting bolts 10. Thus the annular mounting element 4 is arranged to be opened if so required.” See FIG. 1). However, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 may not disclose hinges configured to allow one or more elevator doors in the housing to open to allow a tubular to be passed into the through opening laterally.
Angelle ‘497 which is directed to the same field of endeavor as the instant application teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Angelle ‘575 teaches: the housing (Angelle ‘575, body 102) comprising: one or more hinges (element 108-1 as coupled to hinged doors 104 and 106 in FIG. 1), configured to allow one or more elevator doors in the housing to open to allow a tubular to be passed into the through opening laterally (See FIG. 1 of Angelle ‘575).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Halse as modified by Angelle ‘558 in accordance with the hinged configuration of Angelle ‘575 in order to provide for an elevator housing with a hinged housing capable of receiving a tubular through a lateral opening in the housing.
While both Halse and Angelle ‘558 teach slip components, Halse modified by Angelle ‘558 may not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 16. However, Angelle ‘575, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a tubular elevator, teaches the deficient limitation.
For example, Angelle ‘575 teaches wherein a radially inner surface of the slip component includes two engagement arms (pipe guide 600), wherein an angle formed by the engagement arms is configured to be adjustable such that a face of the engagement arms is substantially tangential to a tubular surface across the range of tubular sizes (see outer surface 606 which rotates from a first position in FIG. 7 to a second position in FIG. 8; para. [0039], “[a] second, distal end 604 of the pipe guide 600 may include an outer surface 606. The outer surface 606 may have a radius of curvature that is shaped and sized to substantially conform to the curved outer surface of the main body 506 of the drill pipe 500 (see FIG. 5).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the pipe guide of Angelle ‘575 into the slip design of Halse in order to achieve the predictable result of providing for a pipe guide located below the slips.
Claim(s) 20—24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelle ‘575 (US 20150240575 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Angelle et al., hereinafter “Angelle ‘558,” (US20100116558 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Angelle ‘575 discloses [a] method of using a tubular elevator, the method comprising: opening one or more elevator doors of the tubular elevator (see FIG. 1 where elevator is open to receive tubular); passing a tubular laterally into a through opening of the tubular elevator through the elevator doors while the tubular elevator is in a retracted position (the tubular is received in the elevator while the body 102 is open); closing the one or more elevator doors (see FIG. 2 and 4); engaging three slip assemblies of the tubular elevator with the tubular (see FIG. 3 and FIG. 5); centering the tubular within the through opening (see para. [0032]—[0033]); and transferring a weight of the tubular to the tubular elevator (para. [0020], FIG. 1 illustrates a perspective view of an elevator 100 having a pair of doors 104, 106 in an open position and a plurality of slips 122 in a first or “upper” position, according to an embodiment. The elevator 100 may be configured for use in drilling, casing, or other types of tubular running systems. Accordingly, the elevator 100 may be configured to support the weight of a tubular and lower the tubular into connection with a subjacent (i.e., already run) tubular as part of a string of tubulars such as a drill pipe or casing string.”).
Angelle further discloses ‘575 discloses adjusting the three slip assemblies so that the tubular is centered within the through opening (see para. [0020], “[t]he elevator 100 may also be configured to allow the weight of the tubular string to be transferred to a spider or another structure located proximal the wellbore, and may then be disengaged from the tubular, lifted, and engaged with another tubular to repeat the process.”; para. [0035], “[t]he slips 122 may be moved to cause the tapered engaging surfaces 176 on the upper portions 170 of the inserts 162 (see FIG. 1) to contact and support the tapered outer surface 502 of the drill pipe 500.” As such, the elevator slips are designed to engage and disengage with multiple tubulars during the tubular handling process.).
However, Angelle ‘575 may not explicitly disclose monitoring respective positions of the three slip assemblies. Angelle ‘558, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Angelle ‘558 teaches 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.”); 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the monitoring step of Angelle ‘558 with the elevator operating method of Angelle ‘575 in order to identify a visual indicated of the position of the slips.
Regarding claim 22, Angelle ‘575 modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches wherein monitoring a position of the three slip assemblies includes monitoring respective actuators of the three slip assemblies (Angelle ‘558, 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 23, Angelle ‘575 modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches wherein centering the tubular within the through opening includes engaging the three slip assemblies so that each of the slip assemblies starts a specified distance from a center axis of the through opening and travels at a same rate toward the center axis of the through opening (both Angelle ‘575 and Angelle ‘558 include linkages which can be connected to a timing ring, which synchronizes the movement of the slips. For example, para. [0031] of Angelle ‘575 states “FIG. 3 illustrates a perspective view of the elevator 100 having the doors 104, 106 in the closed position and the slips 122 in a second or “lower” position, according to an embodiment. As the timing ring (not shown) moves the slips 122 downward with respect to the body 102, the slips 122 may slide down along the surface 121 of the bowl 115, thereby decreasing their radial distances from the longitudinal centerline 103 (because the surface 121 bowl 115 is frustoconical). This moves the slips 122 into the second or “lower” position, as shown in FIG. 3, where the slips 122 may move toward a tubular disposed within the elevator 100 to contact, grip, or otherwise engage the tubular.” See also para. [0028], [0033], and [0035] of Angelle ‘575 and para. [0054], [0056], and [0057]).
Regarding claim 24, Angelle ‘575 modified by Angelle ‘558 teaches engaging one or more additional slip assemblies following centering the tubular within the through opening (see para. [0020] of Angelle ‘575, “[t]he elevator 100 may also be configured to allow the weight of the tubular string to be transferred to a spider or another structure located proximal the wellbore, and may then be disengaged from the tubular, lifted, and engaged with another tubular to repeat the process.”; para. [0035], “[t]he slips 122 may be moved to cause the tapered engaging surfaces 176 on the upper portions 170 of the inserts 162 (see FIG. 1) to contact and support the tapered outer surface 502 of the drill pipe 500.” As such, the elevator slips are designed to engage and disengage with multiple tubulars during the tubular handling process.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1—7 and 9—11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim 1, from which claims 2—7 and 9—11 depend, recites the limitation “two engagement arms arranged on a radially inner surface of the slip component, wherein an angle formed by the [two] engagement arms is configured to be adjustable such that a face of the [two] engagement arms is substantially tangential to a tubular surface across a range of tubular sizes.” The foregoing feature was not found in the prior art at the time of examination thereby rendering claims 1—7 and 9—11 allowable over the prior art. Additional art identified as relevant to the application is listed as follows:
Issued US Patent to Penisson (US 5335756 A) teaches a slip body 34 which is attached to a pivot member 44 as depicted in FIGs. 4—6. This combination of structures is similar to that of the two engagement arms of claim 1; however, there is only one pivot member 44 for each slip body 34;
Issued US Patent to Angelle et al. (US 8794684 B2) teaches slips 130 which vertically translate along one or more rails 129 (see FIGs. 3—4); however, the angle of the rails is not adjustable;
Issued US Patent to Patterson (US 4336637 A) teaches a pipe clamp where slips/gripping members 22 are attached to pivotable links 18 connected by bolts 20. See FIG. 1;
Issued US Patent to Sonneveld et al. (US 7762343 B2) teaches an elevator with a slip assembly including multiple articulated portions of the slip as depicted in FIGs. 9—10;
Issued US Patent to Smith (US 1795578 A) teaches a slip-type elevator where the slip body includes a single handle 43 which is articulated by lever 47 to actuate the slips. See FIGs. 3, 5, 8 and 9;
Issued US Patent to Turner (US 3268969 A) teaches slips which are operated by a pair of slip arms 28 as depicted in FIG. 2;
Issued US Patent to Burstall (US 3358341 A) teaches an elevator including slips (die 38 and teeth 39) which are disposed on a body bolt 34 by two slip lugs 30. See FIGs. 3—6; and
Issued US Patent to Lundeen (US 2109493 A) teaches a slip elevator including a pin 64 and latch 65 which rotationally articulate a slip 30.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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