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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “drive carriage” of claims 2 and 11, the “linear guide” of claim 2, the “inner drill string”, “second drive motor”, “second transmission”, and “outer drill string” of claim 10, the “drill rig”, “carrier device”, “mast”, and “carriage mount” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“output transmission element” in claim 1;
“first torque transmission element” in claims 1, 8, and 9;
“second torque transmission element” in claims 1, 8, and 9; and
“carrier device” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informality: “the drive motor” should read “the at least one drive motor”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“having” in line 1 should read “the drill drive arrangement having:”.
“element, which” in line 7 should read “element which”.
“element, by” in line 8 should read “element by”.
“or a” in line 10 should read “or to a”.
“wherein” in line 11 should read “wherein:”.
“space, on” in line 13 should read “space on”.
“gearwheel with” in line 16 should read “gearwheel and”.
“shaft, on” in line 16 should read “shaft on”.
“wherein the insertion shaft is” in line 11 should read “the insertion shaft being”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: “least first” in line 3 should read “least one first”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: “arranged, wherein” in line 4 should read “arranged, and wherein”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: “device, which” in line 2 should read “device which”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation “A drilling rig having a carrier device…and a mast or a carriage mount” in lines 2-3. However, this limitation contradicts Paragraph 0023 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application which discloses that the mast or the carriage mount is part of the carrier device, not a structure separate from the carrier device as recited in claim 11. Thus, the limitation is not properly described in the specification. The examiner suggests replacing “and” in line 2 of claim 11 with “the carrier device comprising” in order to overcome this rejection.
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 3, 4, 6, and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the drive carriage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation would have proper antecedent basis if claim 3 depended from claim 2 instead of claim 1. The examiner suggests amending claim 3 to depend from claim 2 instead of claim 1 in order to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 3 as if the limitation “in particular on the drive carriage” in line 3 has been omitted.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 3 as if the limitation “in particular as an axial piston motor” in lines 3-4 has been omitted.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the insertion chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the insertion space”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "in particular" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) preceding the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 11 as if the phrase has been omitted.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maschfab Iron Foundry Beien (DE 1268565 B), hereinafter Maschfab.
Regarding claim 1, Maschfab discloses a drill drive arrangement (shown in Figure 1) for driving an earth drilling tool (Page 1 lines 1-4 and Page 4 lines 12-14 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), having
at least one drive motor (2, 2a, and 16 collectively in Figure 1) with a motor housing (2a) and a motor shaft (16), wherein a drive torque generated in the motor housing (2a) can be transmitted by the motor shaft (16) (Page 8 lines 38-40 and Page 9 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), and
a transmission (1 in Figure 1) which is downstream of the drive motor (2, 2a, and 16 collectively) and is configured to convert the drive torque (Page 9 lines 7-10 and Page 7 line 39 – Page 8 line 1 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), wherein the transmission (1) comprises an input transmission element (4 and the gear of the “single-stage or multi-stage” described in Page 7 line 42 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B which is coupled to 4, collectively), which receives the drive torque from the motor shaft (16) of the drive motor (2, 2a, and 16 collectively) (Page 7 line 42 – Page 8 line 1 and Page 9 lines 7-10 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), and an output transmission element (the “output shaft” described in Page 7 line 43), by means of which the drive torque converted by the transmission (1) can be transmitted to the earth drilling tool or a drill string (Page 7 line 42 – Page 8 line 1 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B),
wherein
the motor shaft (16) of the drive motor (2, 2a, and 16 collectively) is formed at least partially as a hollow shaft with an inner insertion space (bore 17 in Figure 1) (apparent from Figure 1), on which at least one first torque transmission element (at least one of the splines of bore 17 described in Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) is formed (Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), and
the input transmission element (4 and the gear of the “single-stage or multi-stage” described in Page 7 line 42 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B which is coupled to 4, collectively) of the transmission (1) has a transmission gearwheel (the gear of the “single-stage or multi-stage” described in Page 7 line 42 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B which is coupled to 4) with an insertion shaft (4), on which at least one second torque transmission element (at least one of the splines of 4 described in Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) is formed (Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), wherein the insertion shaft (4) is releasably inserted axially into the inner insertion space (bore 17) of the motor shaft (16) in a matched manner to form a torque proof connection (because 17 engages 4 “in a rotationally fixed but axially displaceable manner” as described in Page 8 lines 20-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B and transmits torque).
Regarding claim 3, Maschfab discloses that several drive motors (2 and 3 in Figure 1) with gears (4 or one of the gears of the “single-stage or multi-stage” described in Page 7 line 42 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B being the gear of motor 2, and 23 or 22 being the gear of motor 3) are arranged (apparent from Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Maschfab discloses that the drive motor (2, 2a, and 16 collectively) is configured as an electric motor (Page 8 lines 9-11 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B).
Regarding claim 5, Maschfab discloses that the insertion space (bore 17) extends from a free end of the motor shaft (16) up to into a region of the motor shaft (16) which lies within the motor housing (2a) (apparent from Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Maschfab discloses that the insertion shaft (4) inserted into the insertion chamber (bore 17) is located predominantly within the motor housing (2a) (apparent from Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Maschfab discloses that the insertion space (bore 17) is formed as a blind hole in the motor shaft (16) (apparent from Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Maschfab discloses that the at least first torque transmission element (the at least one of the splines of bore 17 described in Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) and the at least one second torque transmission element (the at least one of the splines of 4 described in Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) form a torque-transmitting form-fit connection (because 17 engages 4 “in a rotationally fixed but axially displaceable manner” as described in Page 8 lines 20-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B and transmits torque).
Regarding claim 9, Maschfab discloses that several first torque transmission elements (the splines of bore 17 described in Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) and several second torque transmission elements (the splines of 4 described in Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) are arranged (Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), and that a spline groove-shaft connection is formed between the insertion shaft (4) and the motor shaft (16) (Page 8 lines 22-24 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B).
Regarding claim 10, Maschfab discloses that a first drive motor (3 in Figure 1) with a first transmission (23 in Figure 1) for driving an inner drill string (22 and/or 20 in Figure 1) (Page 8 lines 31-38 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) and a second drive motor (2 in Figure 1) with a second transmission (1 or 4 in Figure 1) for driving an outer drill string (connected to the “output shaft” described in Page 7 line 43 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B) are arranged (Page 7 line 42 – Page 8 line 1 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschfab in view of Hagemeyer (US 2006/0042811).
Regarding claim 2, Maschfab discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the at least one drive motor and the transmission are arranged on a drive carriage which is formed with a linear guide with which the drive carriage can be slided along a guide of a mast or a drill carriage mount.
Hagemeyer teaches that it was known to arrange a drive motor (64 in Figure 2) and a transmission (the “toothed gearing” descried in Paragraph 0031) of a drill drive arrangement (60 in Figures 2 and 1) on a drive carriage (20 in Figures 2 and 1) which is formed with a linear guide (the portion of 20 which engages 19 in Figure 2) with which the drive carriage (20) can be slided along a guide (19 in Figures 2 and 1) of a mast (18 in Figures 2 and 1) (Paragraph 0031), in order to allow the drive motor (64) and the transmission (“toothed gearing”) to drive an earth drilling tool (5 in Figures 1 and 2) to drill a bore/hole into the ground (Paragraphs 0030, 0031, 0001, and 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have arranged the at least one drive motor and the transmission of Maschfab on a drive carriage which is formed with a linear guide with which the drive carriage can be slided along a guide of a mast, as taught by Hagemeyer, because doing so would achieve the predictable result of allowing the drive motor and the transmission to drive an earth drilling tool to drill a bore/hole into the ground. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemeyer (US 2006/0042811) in view of Maschfab Iron Foundry Beien (DE 1268565 B), hereinafter Maschfab.
Regarding claim 11, Hagemeyer discloses a drilling rig (10 in Figure 1) having
a carrier device (12 or 16 in Figure 1), which is configured to be movable in particular (Paragraph 0030), and
a mast (18 in Figures 1 and 2) along which a drive carriage (20 in Figures 1 and 2) is slidably mounted (Paragraphs 0030 and 0031),
wherein
a drill drive arrangement (60 in Figures 1 and 2) is arranged on the drive carriage (20) (Paragraphs 0030 and 0031).
However, Hagemeyer does not disclose: the drill drive arrangement is a drill drive arrangement according to claim 1.
Maschfab teaches that it was known to provide a drill drive arrangement (shown in Figure 1) according to claim 1 (see 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1), in order to allow the drill drive arrangement (shown in Figure 1) to be used when significant load fluctuations occur not only during a drilling starting process but also during the remaining operating time, and when unusually high torques are demanded of the drill drive arrangement for a short period of time (Page 1 lines 7-12 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B), and to make the drill drive arrangement very compact (Page 4 lines 12-19 of Machine Translation of DE 1268565 B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the drill drive arrangement of Hagemeyer with a drill drive arrangement according to claim 1 as taught by Maschfab, because doing so would allow the drill drive arrangement to be used when significant load fluctuations occur not only during a drilling starting process but also during the remaining operating time, and when unusually high torques are demanded of the drill drive arrangement for a short period of time, and would make the drill drive arrangement very compact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731