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 .
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.
Claim 9, 11, and 12 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.
Claims 9 and 12 recites the limitation "the threads." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The term “covering a substantial portion” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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) 1-7, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2018/0128065).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses an apparatus for cleaning a tubular, the apparatus comprising: a longitudinally extending base (103); one or more tubular supports on top of the base for receiving the tubular from a loading path and supporting the tubular on top of the base (125, 127); a first cleaner mounted to the base and moveable between a first loading position spaced apart from the loading path and a first cleaning position in which a first end of the tubular is received within the first cleaner for cleaning (Figures 2, 10, 11, 12, 14: 109; paragraphs 36-37); and a second cleaner mounted to the base opposite the first cleaner and having a second cleaning position in which a second end of the tubular is received within the second cleaner for cleaning (paragraph 39).
Gupta does not appear to expressly disclose the second cleaner is moveable between a second loading position spaced apart from the loading path. Rather, Gupta discloses that in some embodiments, the positioning carriage (117) may include one or more of a cleaning canister or doping canister to clean and/or dop the other end of the drill pipe (paragraph 39).
Because it is known in the art to have a cleaning canister as shown in the first embodiment, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known cleaning canister for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate/mirror the cleaning canister and to have the second cleaner is moveable between a second loading position spaced apart from the loading path.
Regarding claims 2-6, modified Gupta is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the loading path extends at least partially in a transverse direction from the base (Figures 3-5: 129); wherein the loading path extends at least partially in an upward direction from the base. (Figures 4-5: 133); a lift for axially aligning a first end of the tubular with the first cleaner and axially aligning a second end of the tubular with the second cleaner while the first cleaner is in the first loading position and the second cleaner is in the second loading position (113, 113’); wherein the lift comprises one or more lift arms for raising the tubular to axially align the first end of the tubular with the first cleaner and the second end of the tubular with the second cleaner (see unlabeled arms/frame of 113, 113’); wherein the lift comprises a first lift for raising the first cleaner to axially align the first end of the tubular with the first cleaner and a second lift for raising the second cleaner to axial align the second end of the tubular with the second cleaner (arm/frame of 109).
Regarding claims 7, and 13-17, modified Gupta is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the first cleaner is moveable in the longitudinal direction between the first loading position and the first cleaning position and the second cleaner is moveable in the longitudinal direction between the second loading position and the second cleaning position (107 and 117); wherein the one or more tubular supports comprise one or more conveying elements for conveying a tubular along a longitudinally extending conveying path (127; paragraph 30); wherein the one or more conveying elements comprise a plurality of rollers rotatably supported by the base, the plurality of rollers rotatable to convey the tubular in the longitudinal direction wherein rotation of at least one of the rollers is driven by a motor (127; paragraph 30); wherein the second cleaner is moveable between the second loading position and a conveying position spaced apart from the longitudinally extending conveying path (see above obviousness rejection; see Figures 2, 10, 11, 12, 14: 109; paragraphs 36-37); wherein the second cleaner is moveable at least partially in a transverse direction between the second loading position and the conveying position, wherein the transverse direction is generally orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (see above obviousness rejection; see Figures 2, 10, 11, 12, 14: 109; paragraphs 36-37); wherein the second cleaner is pivotably moveable between the second loading position and the conveying position (see above obviousness rejection; see Figures 2, 10, 11, 12, 14: 109; paragraphs 36-37).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2018/0128065) in view of Toelke et al. (US 4,011,617).
Regarding claim 8, modified Gupta is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein: the first cleaner defines a first cavity for receiving the first end of the tubular in the first cleaning position and the first cleaner comprises a first brush located in the first cavity (Figures 2, 10, 11, 12, 14: 109, 151); and the second cleaner defines a second cavity for receiving the second end of the tubular and the second cleaner comprises a second brush located in the second cavity (see above obviousness rejection; see Figures 2, 10, 11, 12, 14: 109, 151).
Modified Gupta does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first brush is drivable to rotate about a first brush axis the first brush axis extending in the longitudinal direction, or wherein the second brush is drivable to rotate about a second brush axis, the second brush axis extending in the longitudinal direction.
Toelke discloses a cleaner for tubular pin and box ends (10) including a housing (20), a motor (100), a first housing portion (24) having a rotatable brush means (88) for a pin end (43), and a second housing portion (25) having a rotatable brush means (88) for a box end (42).
Because it is known in the art to have a rotatable brush for cleaning the pin and/or box end, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing an additional or alternative known means of effecting a cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first brush is drivable to rotate about a first brush axis the first brush axis extending in the longitudinal direction, or wherein the second brush is drivable to rotate about a second brush axis, the second brush axis extending in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 10, modified Gupta is relied upon as above and results in: a first nozzle within the first cavity for directing a cleaning agent toward the first end of the tubular (Gupta: 109, 149; paragraph 39); and a second nozzle within the second cavity for directing a cleaning agent toward the second end of the tubular (Gupta: 109, 149; paragraph 39).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2018/0128065), in view of Toelke et al. (US 4,011,617), and further in view of Begneaud (US 4,467,489).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gupta is relied upon as above and further results in: a plurality of flue bristles for cleaning the threads of the box end of the tubular (Gupta: 109, 151; Toelke: 42, 88).
Modified Gupta does not expressly disclose wherein the first brush comprises a plurality of shoulder bristles for cleaning a shoulder of a box end of the tubular.
Begneaud discloses a portable drill pipe cleaning apparatus including a box end (Figure 10: B) and bristles (90) for cleaning an inner surface (155) of the box end and an outermost face (160).
Because it is known in the art to have a brush for cleaning the inner surface and outermost face of a box end, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known means for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first brush comprises a plurality of shoulder bristles for cleaning a shoulder of a box end of the tubular.
Regarding claim 12, modified Gupta is relied upon as above and further results in: a plurality of thread bristles for cleaning the threads of the pin end of the tubular (Gupta: 109, 151; Toelke: 43, 88).
Modified Gupta does not expressly disclose wherein the second brush comprises a plurality of shoulder bristles for cleaning a shoulder of a pin end of the tubular; and a plurality of nose bristles for cleaning a nose of the pin end of the tubular.
Begneaud discloses a portable drill pipe cleaning apparatus including brushes to clean a face portion (Figure 9: 120) of a pin (P). Begneaud further discloses a portable drill pipe cleaning apparatus including a box end (Figure 10: B) and bristles (90) for cleaning an inner surface (155) of the box end and an outermost face (160).
Because it is known in the art to have a brush for cleaning the face portion of a pin and to clean an outermost face of a box, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, cleaning all the engaging/coupling surfaces of the pin end, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the second brush comprises a plurality of shoulder bristles for cleaning a shoulder of a pin end of the tubular; and a plurality of nose bristles for cleaning a nose of the pin end of the tubular.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2018/0128065), in view of Toelke et al. (US 4,011,617), and further in view of Miller, Jr. (US 4,157,096).
Regarding claim 11, modified Gupta is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a first flexible grommet covering a substantial portion of a first opening of the first cavity, the first flexible grommet defining a first grommet opening for receiving the tubular; and a second flexible grommet covering a substantial portion of a second opening of the second cavity, the second flexible grommet defining a second grommet opening for receiving the tubular.
Miller, Jr. discloses an apparatus for cleaning threaded pipe ends including a tubular housing (34), spray nozzles (38), and a resilient or elastic wall having a central opening forming a fluid seal with an outer pipe surface (39, 40; col. 3, lines 50-56).
Because it is known in the art to have grommet as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known means for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first flexible grommet covering a substantial portion of a first opening of the first cavity, the first flexible grommet defining a first grommet opening for receiving the tubular; and a second flexible grommet covering a substantial portion of a second opening of the second cavity, the second flexible grommet defining a second grommet opening for receiving the tubular.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2018/0128065) in view of Hauck (US 2022/0349267).
Regarding claim 18, modified Gupta is relied upon as above, but does not appear to expressly disclose a plurality of legs individually extendible away from the base for levelling the one or more tubular supports above a ground surface. Gupta appears to show feet supporting the base in certain embodiments (Figures 1, 2, 17).
Hauck discloses a rod handling system including outriggers (Figure 16: 58) which is each independently actuable to allow for different levels of cylinder extension at each outrigger to accommodate for uneven ground surfaces (paragraph 64).
Because it is known in the art to have a level adjustable foot/outrigger as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, accommodating for uneven ground, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of legs individually extendible away from the base for levelling the one or more tubular supports above a ground surface.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2018/0128065) in view of Kang et al. (CN 114440805).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Gupta is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose an ultrasonic thickness sensor mounted to the base for inspection of a thickness of the tubular.
Kang discloses a drill rod electromagnetic ultrasonic thickness measuring device and thickness measuring method comprising a detecting trolley and an ultrasonic thickness measuring assembly (2, 201) to measure a thickness of a drill rod as it rotates (3; abstract).
Because it is known in the art to have an ultrasonic sensor as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known means of monitoring the state of the tubular/rod, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ultrasonic thickness sensor mounted to the base for inspection of a thickness of the tubular.
Claim 20 is considered to be met by modified Gupta which results in: one or more transverse rollers contactable with the tubular, each transverse roller oriented to rotate about a respective axis extending in the longitudinal direction wherein rotation of the one or more transverse rollers causes the tubular to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the tubular while operating the thickness sensor (Gupta: 125; paragraph 30; Kang: 1011, 1012).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights