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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a tracked set of industrial handling robots, classified in B25J11/00.
II. Claims 12-16, drawn to an industrial robot arranged relative to a rig catwalk, classified in E21B19/14.
III. Claim 17-20, drawn to a plurality of industrial handling robots arranged relative to a racking board, classified in E21B19/16.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related product. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. The invention of Invention I, is directed to the arrangement of a plurality of industrial handling robots with tracks. The invention of Invention II, is directed to a single industrial handling robot and its arrangement relative to a catwalk. Significant, distinct, divergence in the dependent claims is also noted. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are directed to related product. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. The invention of Invention I, is directed to the arrangement of a plurality of industrial handling robots with tracks. The invention of Invention III is directed to a plurality of industrial handling robots and a racking board, with no track system recited. Significant, distinct, divergence in the dependent claims is also noted. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and II are directed to related product. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. The invention of Invention III is directed to a plurality of industrial handling robots and a racking board, with no track system recited. The invention of Invention II, is directed to a single industrial handling robot and its arrangement relative to a catwalk. Significant, distinct, divergence in the dependent claims is also noted. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(A) Separate classification;
(B) A separate status in the art even when classifiable together;
(C) A different field of search: It is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries. Examiner notes that a different field of search may exist even though inventions may be classified together; and/or
(D) The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph/A.
In this case, the inventions are at least classified differently, as indicated above and/or would require a unique text search strategy to search the patentably distinct features as discussed above.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
A telephone call was made to Robert McCutcheon on 6/1/26 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made. A voice message was left but has not been returned as of the mailing of this action.
During a telephone conversation with Robert McCutcheon on 6/2/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-11 Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-4 and 10 recites “is/are employed”. This is grammatically awkward in view of the claim being directed to an apparatus claim. This would be more appropriately phrased as “configured to be employed […]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao (CN 115434650 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hao teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a first industrial handling robot positioned on a drilling rig floor (Fig 5-6, robot 10 on floor seen); and
a second industrial handling robot (Fig 5-6, robot 7) mounted on a track on the drilling rig floor (Fig 5-6, track 71, seen on floor), wherein the track is configured to facilitate movement of the second industrial handling robot between a first position along the track (Fig 6, position seen) and a second position along the track (Fig 6, please see dependent claims 4, 5-6, and 9).
Regarding claim 2, Hao teaches wherein, in the first position on the drilling rig floor, the second industrial handling robot is employed for handling tubulars (Fig 6, handling of tubular 11).
Regarding claim 3, Hao teaches wherein, in the first position on the drilling rig floor, the second industrial handling robot is employed for making up a first tubular with a second tubular (Fig 6, handling of tubular 11, used in combination with 10 to make up tubulars).
Regarding claim 4, Hao teaches wherein, in the second position on the drilling rig floor, the second industrial handling robot is employed for removing a tubular from a catwalk or placing the tubular onto the catwalk (Fig 6, in the position closest to 8/second position, the robot 7 is able to engage with catwalk 8 with tubulars).
Regarding claim 5, Hao teaches wherein the second position on the drilling rig floor allows manual operations with tubulars on the drilling rig floor (Fig 6, in the position closest to 8/second position, the robot 7 is moved to a position which permits manual operations, which are not required by the claim).
Regarding claim 6, Hao teaches wherein the second position for the second industrial handling robot is located away from drilling rig floor operations (Fig 6, in the position closest to 8/second position, the robot 7 is moved away from the rig floor/center).
Regarding claim 7, Hao teaches wherein movement of the second industrial handling robot on the track increases a working range of the second industrial handling robot (Fig 5-7, track 71 allows the robot to move and thus increases its range).
Regarding claim 8, Hao teaches wherein the track is a curved track (Fig 5-6, track 71 is curved, as seen).
Regarding claim 9, Hao teaches wherein the first position on the drilling rig floor is between a well center and a catwalk (Fig 6, the first position seen, is between the well center defined by 5 and catwalk 8, when considered as a one dimensional axis between the elements) and the second position on the drilling rig floor is offset from a path between the well center and the catwalk (Fig 6, is the far left of track 71, is offset from the vertical portion between the well center/catwalk, as seen).
Regarding claim 10, Hao teaches a powered mousehole (Fig 6, mouse hole 12, see Page 3 of translation, the process with the mousehole is automated), wherein the first industrial handling robot, the second industrial handling robot, and the powered mousehole are employed for making up a first tubular with a second tubular (see Step 2).
Regarding claim 11, Hao teaches a tubular handling robot positioned on the drilling rig floor (Fig 4, mechanical hand robot 6) and operated cooperatively with the first industrial handling robot and the second industrial handling robot during at least one of tripping, racking, or stand building (see Step 2 and Step 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cappuccio (SPE-197854-MS) teaches a value proposition from using robotic equipment includes faster tripping due to consistent and seamless handling.
McCormick (US 20240173869 A1) teaches a drill rig floor includes a robotic system having a base disposed on a track for movement thereon, a robot arm supported on the base, and one or more end effector tools selectively attachable to an end of the robot arm.
Basile (US 20210054700 A1) teaches an articulated arm, a robotic apparatus, and a handling head are adapted to seize, hold and release a drilling element. The articulated arm is fixed at a first end to the slide.
McKenzie (US 20200040674 A1) teaches a lifting system for handling a load of a pipe stand, a pipe handling robot configured for engaging with the pipe stand and manipulating a position of the pipe stand, and a feedback device.
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