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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1, 1A-2, 4-5, 78A-9 have poor line quality such that they would result in unsatisfactory reproduction characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(L). The lines are faint/gray and/or use impermissible shading.
Figure 1 appears to have two stray lead lines below reference number 400.
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “a internal diameter”. There is a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “a locked position to an unlocked position”. It is unclear if this is the same or different than the previously introduced “a locked position” and “an unlocked position”. If they are the same, it is unclear why the appropriate antecedent term is not used. Dependent claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lugs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note the claim depends from claim 4. However, even if amended to depend from claim 5, claim 5 recites “the at least one lug” and not “lugs”.
Claim 11 recites “a plurality of lugs”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the previously recites “at least one lug” in the parent claim. Or whether the at least one lug comprises a plurality of lugs. Claim 12 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of lugs”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the previously recites “at least one lug” or the “a plurality of lugs” in the parent claim(s).
Claim 14 recites “an unlocked position and/or a locked position.” It is unclear if this is the same or different than the previously introduced “a locked position” and “an unlocked position”. It is additionally noted two components in parent claim 1 have been recited as having “a locked position” and “an unlocked position”. Claim 15 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 16 recites “a stinger having a lock feature”. However, the claim directs the invention towards a latching coupler assembly, rendering it unclear whether the stringer and its recited particulars are required by the claim. Claim 17 is rejected for its dependency from claim 17 and reciting similarly ambiguous phrasing e.g. “wherein the lock feature is […]” which appears to be inconsistent with the preamble.
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) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arendt (US 4127167 A).
Regarding claim 1, Arendt teaches a latching system comprising:
(a) a stinger (Fig 4-5, stinger 42, 118a, extending to 34);
(b) a coupler assembly (see following) having:
a. a latching mechanism for securely engaging the stinger (Fig 3-5, latch 46 and corresponding housing 96), the latching mechanism moveable between a locked position (Fig 3, 46 is fully inserted and engaged with 104), an unlocked position (Fig 4-5, 46 is completely outside the 40b/40c), and at least one transition position (Fig 3-5, 46 is inserted in 40b/40c, but not engaged with 104); and
b. an indexing mechanism (Fig 3, Fig 5, mechanism including 40c, 40b, with lugs and slot 72 and 70) for indexing the latching mechanism from an unlocked position (Fig 4, lower position of 70a) to a locked position (Fig 4, position 70b), and from a locked position to an unlocked position (Fig 4, lug 72 is able to move within the slot 70), wherein the indexing mechanism is configured to translate vertical movement of the coupler assembly to index the latching mechanism (Fig 4, slot portion 70a results in vertical indexing movement, and alignment to permit fitting of latching mechanism e.g. latch part 46).
Regarding claim 2, Arendt teaches wherein the stinger is configured to attach to an upper end of a wellhead (Fig 1, stringer would be at least indirectly attached to wellhead 12, see Fig 2a-2b which structures e.g. 124) and the coupler assembly is configured to attach to a lower end of a surface equipment (Fig 1, coupler, as defined above, is at least indirectly attachable to surface equipment e.g. 16).
Regarding claim 3, Arendt teaches wherein the indexing mechanism comprises a cam ring (Fig 4, 40c) defining a cam slot (Fig 4, slot 70) and a cam follower sleeve (Fig 5, 40b) having at least one cam follower (Fig 5, follower 72), wherein the cam follower is positioned within the cam slot and follows an indexing pattern when the cam ring is moved axially relative to the cam follower sleeve (Fig 4-5, follows slot defining indexing pattern within 70, as seen).
Regarding claim 5, Arendt teaches wherein the latching mechanism comprises a lug housing (Fig 4, portion of housing of 94 with opening to accommodate lug 46) and at least one moveable lug which extends radially inward to engage the stinger (Fig 4-5, see Fig 2A, lug 46 engages stinger at 104) in response to movement of the indexing mechanism (Fig 3, 4-5, the lug is positionable only when the slot of the indexing mechanism is appropriately aligned).
Regarding claim 6, Arendt teaches wherein the at least one lug comprise an element ( Fig 2A, 3, 5, element 46) which engages a shoulder, a ridge, a thread, or a detent formed on or by the stinger (Fig 2A, 3, ridge at 104).
Regarding claim 8, Arendt teaches a centering cone positioned either on the stinger or the coupling assembly to aid in vertical alignment of the latching system (Fig 2A-3, cone surface on string 34; aligned with the feature around 128, when positioned in its intended location aids in alignment of the latch system).
Regarding claim 9, Arendt teaches wherein the at least one lug comprises a planar surface which engages a locking shoulder formed on the stinger (Fig 2A, Fig 4-5, planar surface is the upper surface of lug 46 engages with shoulder at 104 on shoulder).
Regarding claim 10, Arendt teaches wherein the at least one lug comprises an ovoid or cylindrical surface which engages a matching detent formed on the stinger (Fig 4-5, lug 46 has a cylindrical/ovoid surface on its inner surface between 46b and 46a).
Regarding claim 11, Arendt teaches a plurality of lugs arrayed in at least one horizontal row (Fig 2B, lugs between 126 and 22a/unlabeled bolts).
Regarding claim 12, Arendt teaches a plurality of lugs arrayed in two or more horizontal rows (Fig 2B, first row lugs between 126 and 22a/unlabeled bolts and second row of lugs between 38 and 22a/unlabeled bolts).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt (US 4127167 A), in view of Mericas (US 20170167225 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Arendt is silent on wherein the cam ring is disposed within the cam follower sleeve.
Mericas teaches that an indexing slot profile and corresponding lug have an orientation that is reversable (Para 0028, “the profile 46 formed on the stem 30, as depicted in FIG. 2, but in other examples these positions could be reversed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ardent by having reversing the positions of the cam ring and cam follower sleeve as Mericas teaches that an indexing slot profile and corresponding lug have an orientation that is reversable and remain operable with a reasonable expectation of success. It is additionally noted that a reversal of parts has been held to be an obvious modification see In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt (US 4127167 A), in view of Munk (US 20070292213 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Arendt is silent on a visual indicator indicative of the system being in an unlocked position and/or a locked position.
Munk teaches a visual indicator indicative of the system being in an unlocked position and/or a locked position (Para 0025, Fig 3, painted stripe 63 would show an aligned locked/unlocked position).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Arendt by having a visual indicator indicative as disclosed by Munk because it would inform a user as to the relative position of components which are to be aligned/unaligned.
Regarding claim 15, Arendt teaches wherein the visual indicator is a colored stripe which is indicative of the axial position of the indexing mechanism (Para 0025, Fig 3 of Munk, as modified, the stripe 63 would indicate the position of the outer housing which is part of the indexing mechanism of Arendt).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: As discussed in the prior art rejection(s) above, Arendt is the best available reference and teaches the claims discussed above.
Regarding claim 7 it is recited that, “wherein the cam ring defines an internal profile having a internal diameter which varies along the length of the cam ring, and which bears on the latching mechanism, such that axial movement of the cam ring relative to the latching mechanism causes the lugs to extend or permits the lugs to retract.” As construed in Arendt, the lugs and cam ring do not have the functional relationship recited.
Regarding claim 13 it is recited that, “a cam spring for biasing the cam ring downwards.” Based on the art available to the examiner, it would not have been obvious to modify Ardent to have this functionality. The cam ring does not have features which would be amenable to inclusion of the recited cam spring for biasing the ring downward. Regarding claim 16, Arendt is the best available reference. It is noted, similar to claim 7, there is a functional relationship between the and the lug assembly (i.e. “the cam ring further having an internal profile bearing on the at least one lug assembly to move each lug inward to its locked position”). As construed, the functional limitation is not present. Claim 17 depends from claim 16.
Based on the art available to the examiner, either individually or in combination, these missing features are not taught or rendered obvious without the benefit of impermissible hindsight. The art in the section below were considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams (US 7163054 B2) teaches a breechblock connection for quick and easy removal and installation of the oil field lines to oil field equipment and to other oil field lines, and connections between different pieces of oil field equipment.
McCaskill (US 4185856 A) teaches first and second pipes supported substantially vertically in a subsea location with a breech block connector connecting the pipes together, the said breech block connector comprising male and female elements, one of which has longitudinally extending circumferentially spaced lugs thereon.
Garza (US 12529270 B1) teaches a plurality of locking assemblies for securing the connector body to the second component. Each locking assembly includes a locking segment which is configured to engage a locking profile on the second component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights