DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. All currently pending claims have been considered below. 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
No IDS has been filed in the present case. If applicable, the Examiner respectfully notes Applicant's duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability, as per MPEP §609, and the time limits for such a filing set forth under 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 2, the phrase "a tubular string" should be "the tubular string" as this feature is previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the preambles of each independent claim recites elements that could either be construed as intended use or as structural limitations on the claim. For example, the preamble of claim 1 (emphasis added) recites "[a] shroud system for a tubular string clamping device on a well platform, the clamping device having a pocket door, the shroud system comprising…" Similar "…for [use with]…" language is also in independent claims 11 & 20.
Citing MPEP 2111.02 - Effect of Preamble (emphasis added):
The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim… "[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it." Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim."
I. Preamble Statements Limiting Structure
Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See, e.g., Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application "to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification."); Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention). See also In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (The claim at issue was directed to a driver for setting a joint of a threaded collar; however, the body of the claim did not directly include the structure of the collar as part of the claimed article. The examiner did not consider the preamble, which did set forth the structure of the collar, as limiting the claim. The court found that the collar structure could not be ignored.
In claim 1, for example, the body references preamble elements "door pocket" and "an interior of the tubular string clamping device ", and uses these preamble elements to structurally limit other elements of the claims ("cover frame" and "cover door" in claim 1) to wit: "a cover frame configured to engage with the door pocket of the clamping device [preamble element] and the cover frame is configured to define an access opening relative to the door pocket [preamble element] for access to an interior of the tubular string clamping device [preamble element]" and "wherein the cover frame and the cover door are configured such that… the access opening is uncovered thereby providing a passage through the door pocket and into the interior of the tubular string clamping device…" The claim as a whole clearly "suggests" the preamble "has the import", to use the language of MPEP 2111.02, second paragraph, and the structures of the claim elements in the body are directly linked to the structures of the preamble.
This shows that claims as a whole are only complete, and the elements therein only have clear meaning, when the preambles are interpreted as reciting limiting structure. "If the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." (MPEP 2111.02, second paragraph).
In other words, the structural limitations of the body of the claims are expressly linked to the preamble structure, in contrast to MPEP 2111.02, subsection II: "If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction".
If the preamble is interpreted as not reciting limiting structure, claim 1 amounts of a "frame" with "a cover door that is pivotally attached to the cover frame [that is] pivotable between an open position and a closed position" and nothing else. A conventional framed house door reads on this. In other words, if the preamble is given a non-limiting interpretation, the body of the claim clearly does not "fully and intrinsically set forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention". "If the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." (MPEP 2111.02, second paragraph).
This interpretation is given to every independent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,920,931 (Webre).
Independent claim 20.Webre discloses a shroud system (figs 9-14) for a tubular string clamping device on a well platform ("When the spider slips are open, the control line can be moved toward the pipe string, can be clamped to the pie string and string and line can be lowered into the well…" - abstract), the clamping device ("spider 12" - figs 9-14) having a door pocket (opening or top of the spider, shown in profile in fig 9 when "flap assemblies 21 and 22" are open in the dashed line position; similar for fig 14), the shroud system comprising:
a pivotally mounted cover door (Figs 9 & 10: "FIGS. 9 and 10 show a flap-type control line trap. Flap assemblies 21 and 22 are each mirrored images of the other. Flaps 21a and 22a are attached to the body of spider 12 by brackets 21b and 22b respectively to hinge about shafts 21c and 22c. Handles 21d and 22d are for manual handling but power cylinders may be used. Rotary motors M are shown as options for rotating shafts 21c and 22c, and both flaps, by fluid power. The flaps have arcuate openings 21f and 22f to accept the pipe 7 and arcuate openings 21e and 22e for trapping control line in path 10". Figs 13 & 14: "plates 40 and 41 respectively for arcuate movement in arcuate slits 40b and 41b. Openings 40a and 41a accept pipe string 7 and openings 40d and 41d accept and trap the control line in path 10" - first full ¶ of col 5) that is disposable in an open position (dashed line position in figs 9 & 14) and in a closed position (full line position in figs 9, 10, 13, & 14), wherein in the open position the door pocket is uncovered (dashed line position in figs 9 & 14) thereby providing a passage through the door pocket and into an interior of the tubular string clamping device (ibid; clearly an "open" position), and in the closed position the cover door is disposed to cover the door pocket (ibid); and
an actuator controllable to actuate the cover door between the open position and the closed position (Figs 9 & 10: " Rotary motors M are shown as options for rotating shafts 21c and 22c, and both flaps" - col 4:50-51. Figs 13 & 14: "fluid motors M2 represent means to rotate the plates by fluid power" - col 5:14-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The examiner first notes the "claim interpretation" section above with regards the preambles of claims 1 & 11, not repeated again here. Independent claim 11 is only narrower than claim 1. The examiner therefore directs comments to just claim 1.
The prior art does not teach nor suggest the combination of elements in claim 1. US 6,920,931 (Webre) used in the 102 rejection of claim 20 above teaches a clamping device with pivotally mounted doors to open and close access to the clamping device as cited for claim 20 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
However Webre has no "cover frame" with "a cover door" pivotally attached thereto, in combination with a "clamping device with a door pocket" that the doors cover or uncover. Rather Webre only has "cover doors" directly on top of the "clamping device" (fig 9) itself.
The same is similarly true for 20110147008, fig 5: Doors 77 are mounted directly on "tapered bowl 71". The bowl would need to be the "clamping device having a door pocket", so there is no "cover frame configured to engage with the door pocket".
Similar for 20120090828, figs 1-3: Element 20 is the "clamping device" and door 24 / 25 (apparently not used in the specification) is attached directly thereto.
US 2024/0271493 teaches a spider with a housing (106, fig 4) with a door pocket (not numbered but shown in fig 1). But no cover frame and door.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676