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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is shorter than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arya et al. (US 2022/0410994, hereafter Arya).
With regards to claim 1, Arya discloses 1. (Original) A method of retrofitting a service rig, comprising: obtaining a service rig having a plurality of mechanically powered equipment for performing well service operations; and retrofitting the service rig with a plurality of electrically powered equipment for performing well service operations (para. 1, clm. 1).
With regards to claim 2, Arya discloses disconnecting and removing the plurality of mechanically powered equipment from the service rig (para 21-23).
With regards to claim 21, Arya discloses a method of retrofitting a service rig, comprising: obtaining a service rig having a chassis and a plurality of mechanically powered equipment for performing well service operations (Fig. 1); retrofitting the service rig with a plurality of electrically powered equipment for performing well service operations (Fig. 2; claims); and coupling a support system to the service rig to electrically support the electrically powered equipment (claims).
With regards to claim 22, Arya discloses the support system comprises an electrical power source for powering the electrically powered equipment (para. 17, claims).
With regards to claim 23, Arya discloses the power source is an electrical generator or a connection to a utility grid (para. 17, claims).
With regards to claim 24, Arya discloses the support system comprises a variable frequency drive for controlling a motor on the electrically powered service rig (para. 28).
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.
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) 3-6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Woolslayer et al. (US 3009547, hereafter Woolslayer).
With regards to claim 3, Arya shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to discloses performing one or more of rebuilding, refurbishing, testing, or certifying at least one of the removed mechanically powered equipment. Woolslayer discloses that Derrick can be torn down and rebuilt when moving to a new well (col. 1:16-21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rebuilding disclosed in Woolslayer with the apparatus taught in Arya with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done because it is taught in Woolslayer that this is a known method of moving a derrick from one well to another (col. 1:16-21).
With regards to claim 4, Woolslayer discloses installing the at least one of the removed mechanically powered equipped back (col. 1:16-21).
With regards to claim 5, Arya discloses (claims) installing the electrically powered equipment onto the service rig to retrofit the service rig into an electrically powered service rig (clm. 1).
With regards to claim 6, Arya discloses . (Original) The method of claim 5, wherein removing the plurality of mechanically powered equipment comprises removing a diesel engine (para. 17-19).
With regards to claim 8, Woolslayer discloses removing the derrick and reinstalling the derrick (col. 1:16-21).
With regards to claim 10, Arya discloses removing a mechanically powered drawworks (clm. 8; para. 25).
With regards to claim 11, Arya discloses installing an electrically powered drawworks (para. 25).
With regards to claim 13, Arya discloses removing one or more of hydraulic (109) equipment, walkways, or hydraulic pump powered by a diesel engine (para. 17, 18, 23).
With regards to claim 15, Arya discloses installing one or more of electronic devices, electrical motors, or electronic circuitry (claims).
With regards to claim 16, Arya discloses installing a cooling system, a transmission, driver controls, an electric control box, or combinations thereof (para. 5, 6; claims).
With regards to claim 19, Arya discloses providing a support system to support electrical equipment for operating the service rig (para. 5, 6; claims).
With regards to claim 20, Arya discloses the support system comprises a vehicle (300), trailer (204, 216), or a skid; and the support system includes one or more of an electric generator (para. 17), a variable frequency drive (para. 28), or a cooling system.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Woolslayer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wyman et al. (US 2023/0198295, hereafter Wyman).
With regards to claim 17, modified Arya shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose installing a hydraulic pumping unit (HPU) system for providing pressurized hydraulic fluid to hydraulic equipment on the service rig. Wyman discloses the use of one or more hydraulic pumps in conjunction with electric motors for powering hydraulic equipment at a wellsite (para. 24, 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hydraulic pump disclosed in Wyman with the apparatus taught in modified Arya with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done because it is common practice in the wellbore art to use a hydraulic pump to power hydraulic equipment at well sites.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Woolslayer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Moberg (US 2022/0090482).
With regards to claim 18, modified Arya shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose installing an air compressor powered by an air compressor electric motor. Moberg discloses a mobile drilling machine that includes an air compressor (para. 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hydraulic compressor disclosed in Moberg with the apparatus taught in modified Arya with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done because it is common practice in the wellbore art to use an air compressor for equipment at well sites.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art all show similar features to those of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P STEPHENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/DANIEL P STEPHENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676