DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 12/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 filed 2/20/2026 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/19/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Winkle (US 6006647).
Regarding claim 1, the Van Winkle reference discloses a lock system, comprising:
a lock assembly (considered the combination of 50 and 42) for a movable component (considered the ram 22);
a lock line (38) configured to apply pressure to actuate the lock assembly;
a close line (40) configured to apply pressure to close the movable component; and
a pilot block (64) comprising a respective pilot-operated check valve (78, 80) along the lock line, wherein the pilot block is actuated via a respective target pressure in the close line (it is considered that when the pressure in the close line 40 increases to operate the movable component 22, the pressure in line 38 is increased to move the lock member 50).
In regards to claim 4, the Van Winkle reference discloses an unlock line (73) configured to apply pressure to actuate the lock assembly (through line 75; see figure 1); and
the pilot block comprising a respective pilot-operated check valve (it is considered that the check valve 78 is located along the unlock line at the line 72) along the unlock line.
In regards to claim 6, the Van Winkle reference discloses an additional lock assembly for an additional movable component (the lock assembly as shown in figure 1 and figure 2 is mirrored with an additional ram and an additional lock member is used; col. 3, lines 1-11);
the lock line (considered the mirrored line corresponding to line 38) configured to apply pressure to actuate the additional lock assembly;
an additional close line (considered the mirrored line corresponding to line 40) configured to apply pressure to close the additional movable component; and
an additional pilot block (considered the mirrored pilot block corresponding to pilot block 64) comprising a respective pilot-operated check valve (considered the mirrored check valve corresponding to check valve 78, 80) along the lock line, wherein the additional pilot block is actuated via a respective target pressure in the additional close line (it is considered that when the pressure in the mirrored close line 40 increases to operate the mirrored movable component 22, the pressure in mirrored line 38 is increased to move the mirrored lock member 50).
In regards to claim 7, the Van Winkle reference discloses wherein the movable component comprises a ram (22) of a blowout preventer.
In regards to claim 8, the Van Winkle reference discloses wherein the pressure to close (through line 40) the movable component (22) corresponds to the respective target pressure to enable adjustment of a lock member (50) of the lock assembly to a lock position (considered the position depicted in figure 2) while the movable component is in a closed position (see figure 2) (it is considered that the pressure through the close line 40 moves the piston 22 to force the pressure through the lock line 38 to move the lock member 50 to the lock position as depicted in figure 2).
In regards to claim 10, the Van Winkler reference discloses a pilot block housing (42), wherein the pilot block housing supports the respective pilot-operated check valve (78, 80) and a flow regulator (84, 88).
Regarding claim 12, the Van Winkle reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using including operating a lock system, the method comprising:
providing a closing flow of hydraulic fluid through a close line (40) to adjust a movable component (28, 12) to a closed position (see figure 2);
actuating a pilot block (64) via sufficient pressure of the closing flow of hydraulic fluid in the close line (it is considered that the pressure from the close line 40 is received within the chamber 20 which moves the piston 22 to provide a pressure force to the fluid through line 38); and
providing a locking flow of hydraulic fluid through a lock line (38) and across the pilot block (64) to adjust a lock member (52, 50) of a lock assembly to a lock position (considered the position depicted in figure 2) to maintain the movable component in the closed position.
In regards to claim 15, the Van Winkle reference discloses wherein the movable component comprises a ram (12) of a blowout preventer.
In regards to claim 16, the Van Winkle reference discloses adjusting the locking flow of hydraulic fluid via a flow regulator (84, 88) of the pilot block.
Regarding claim 17, the Van Winkle reference discloses a system, comprising:
a movable component (12);
a movable component actuator (28) configured to drive the movable component between an open position (position depicted in figure 1) and a closed position (position depicted in figure 2);
a lock member (50);
a lock actuator (52) configured to drive the lock member between an unlock position (considered the position depicted in figure 1) and a lock position (considered the position depicted in figure 2); and
a pilot block (64) comprising at least one pilot-operated check valve (78, 80) across a lock line (considered the line that includes 38 and the inlet into chamber 46) that fluidly couples a hydraulic fluid source to the lock actuator, wherein the at least one pilot-operated check valve is configured to be actuated via application of sufficient pressure in a close line (40) that fluidly couples the hydraulic fluid source to the movable component actuator (it is considered that the pressure from the close line 40 is received within the chamber 20 which moves the piston 22 to provide a pressure force to the fluid through line 38, operate the valve within the pilot block 64 and into the chamber 46 to operate the lock actuator).
In regards to claim 18, the Van Winkle reference discloses wherein the movable component comprises a ram (12) of a blowout preventer.
In regards to claim 19, the Van Winkle reference discloses comprising:
an additional movable component (the lock assembly as shown in figure 1 and figure 2 is mirrored with an additional ram and an additional lock member is used; col. 3, lines 1-11);
an additional movable component actuator (considered the mirrored movable component actuator corresponding to the piston 22) configured to drive the additional movable component between a respective open position and a respective closed position;
an additional lock member (considered the mirrored lock member corresponding to lock member 50);
an additional lock actuator (considered the mirrored lock actuator corresponding to lock actuator 52) configured to drive the additional lock member between a respective unlock position and a respective lock position; and
an additional pilot block (considered the mirrored pilot block corresponding to pilot block 64) comprising at least one respective pilot-operated check valve (considered the mirrored check valve corresponding to check valve 78, 80) across the lock line that fluidly couples the hydraulic fluid source to the additional lock actuator, wherein the at least one respective pilot-operated check valve is configured to be actuated via application of sufficient pressure in a respective close line that fluidly couples the hydraulic fluid source to the additional movable component actuator (it is considered that when the pressure in the mirrored close line 40 increases to operate the mirrored movable component 22, the pressure in mirrored line 38 is increased to move the mirrored lock member 50).
In regards to claim 20, the Van Winkle reference discloses a body (10, 18, and 16) that supports the movable component (12);
a pilot block housing (42), wherein the pilot block housing supports the respective pilot-operated check valve (78, 80) and a flow regulator (84, 88), wherein the pilot block housing is coupled to the body (coupled via the elements 44; see figure 1).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Winkle (US 6006647) in view of Schaeper (US 8444109).
In regards to claim 2, the Van Winkle reference does not disclose wherein the lock assembly comprises a rotary lock assembly.
However, the Schaeper reference teaches a lock assembly (58) for a blowout preventer having a rotary member (52, 64) that is coaxial with a movable component (18, 12) of a blowout preventer in order to restrain lateral movement of the movable component (see col. 7, lines 48-60).
The substitution of one known element (the lock assembly being a rotary lock assembly as shown in Schaeper) for another (the lock assembly as shown in Van Winkle) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of lock assembly being a rotary lock assembly having a rotary shaft with a clutch plate shown in Schaeper would have yielded predictable results, namely, a lock assembly that supports and restrains the lateral movement of the movable member of the Van Winkle reference.
In regards to claim 3, the Van Winkle reference does not disclose wherein a lock member of the lock assembly is coaxial with the movable component.
However, the Schaeper reference teaches a lock assembly (58) for a blowout preventer having a rotary member (52, 64) that is coaxial with a movable component (18, 12) of a blowout preventer in order to restrain lateral movement of the movable component (see col. 7, lines 48-60).
The substitution of one known element (the lock assembly having a lock member being coaxial with the movable component as shown in Schaeper) for another (the lock assembly as shown in Van Winkle) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of lock assembly having a lock member being coaxial with the movable component shown in Schaeper would have yielded predictable results, namely, a lock assembly that supports and restrains the lateral movement of the movable member of the Van Winkle reference.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Winkle (US 6006647) in view of Anderson (US 5049724).
In regards to claim 11, the Van Winkle reference does not disclose wherein the pilot block housing comprises or is coupled to a fire shield material that surrounds at least the flow regulator.
However, the Anderson reference teaches covering a blowout preventer and associated components with a fire shield material (fabric cover is made of oil resistant, water resistant and fire resistant material; see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the lock system of the Van Winkle reference with a fire shield material as taught by the Anderson reference in order to surround and cover the blowout preventer and associated components so that the components have thermal protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 13 and 14 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:
In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an additional lock assembly for an additional movable component; and
a common line to fluidly couple the lock assembly and the additional lock assembly, such that respective lock members of the lock assembly and the additional lock assembly move in a coordinated manner; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a controller, wherein the controller comprises:
a close input selectable by an operator to initiate application of the close pressure through the close line; and
a lock input selectable by the operator to initiate application of the lock pressure through the lock line; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest providing the closing flow of the hydraulic fluid through the close line in response to a close command input by an operator at a controller; and
providing the locking flow of hydraulic fluid through the lock line in response to a lock command input by the operator at the controller; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest blocking the locking flow of hydraulic fluid across an additional pilot block in absence of sufficient pressure in an additional close line associated with the additional pilot block; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whitby et al. (US 7300033), Leggett et al. (US 5287879), Williams, III (US 4969390), Williams, III (US 4969627), Allen et al. (US 3208357), Poveda et al. (US 20220136356), and Norbom (US 20190211644) disclose various locking systems for a blowout preventer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights