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 .
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) 1-2, 15-16, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arya (US 20220410994).
Regarding claim 1, Arya teaches: A method of converting a carrier rig to a trailer rig, comprising:
providing a carrier rig (Arya 100) having a carrier rig chassis, a suspension system (Arya comprising 104; [0018]), a transport system (Arya comprising at least 101, 102), and rig service equipment (Arya comprising at least 107);
removing (Arya [0019-0022]) one or more of the suspension system, the transport system, and the rig service equipment; and
attaching a chassis extension (Arya [0019]) to the carrier rig chassis to form a trailer rig chassis of the trailer rig, the chassis extension configured to (Arya [0019]) couple to a transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising removing (Arya [0019]) from the carrier rig at least one of a front steering axles, front wheels, a front suspension system, a fuel tank, an exhaust, a cooling system for the transport engine, a braking system, a battery for starting the transport engine, and a headlight.
Regarding claim 15, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising installing drawworks (Arya [0019-0022]) and a power system (Arya [0019-0022]) for operating the drawworks on the trailer rig.
Regarding claim 16, Arya teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein the drawworks and the power system were removed (Arya [0019-0022, 0024-0027]) from the carrier rig and reinstalled on the trailer rig.
Regarding claim 22, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising coupling (Arya [0019]) the trailer rig to the transport vehicle, and transporting (Arya [0019]) the trailer rig to a wellsite.
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) 3, 6, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Havinga (US 20120168179).
Regarding claim 3, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, but does not expressly state: wherein the derrick is located at a rear end of the carrier rig chassis, and attaching the chassis extension comprises attaching the chassis extension to a front end of the carrier rig chassis.
Havinga teaches a mobile rig wherein the derrick (Havinga 16) is located (Havinga Fig. 1) at a rear end of the carrier rig chassis, and attaching (Havinga near 22/23/38) the chassis extension comprises attaching the chassis extension to a front end of the carrier rig chassis.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Arya to include the positioning / attaching configuration disclosed in Havinga where the mast/derrick at the rear of the trailer and attaching the chassis extension near the front with a reasonable expectation of success and yielded the predictable result of allowing the operator to orient (e.g. position over the wellbore) and/or transport the rig equipment in a known and conventional way.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Arya and Havinga teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein the chassis extension includes a connecting area (Havinga near 23) having an underside contact surface and a king pin for coupling to the transport vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, but does not expressly state: further comprising installing one or more telescoping stabilizing jacks and one or more trailer jack stands to the trailer rig chassis.
Havinga teaches installing one or more telescoping stabilizing jacks (Havinga 30/32) and one or more trailer jack stands (Havinga 36) to the trailer rig chassis.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Arya to include installing jack stands in order to allow the operator to stabilize and level the chassis Havinga [0014].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Arya and Havinga teaches: The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more trailer jack stands are installed (Havinga 36) on the chassis extension.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Woolslayer (US 3009547).
Regarding claim 10, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, but does not expressly state: further comprising removing the derrick from the carrier rig chassis, inspecting the derrick, and reinstalling the derrick on the trailer rig chassis.
Woolslayer teaches tearing down and rebuilding a derrick when moving to a new well (Woolslayer 1:16-21).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have combine the dismantling and rebuilding of a derrick disclosed in Woolslayer with the apparatus taught in Arya with a reasonable expectation of success and yielded the predictable result of a functioning derrick at a desired location. This would be done because it is taught in Woolslayer that it is known to dismantle and rebuild a derrick Woolslayer 1:16-21.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Chehade (US 20090200856).
Regarding claim 18, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, but does not expressly state: further comprising installing a brake hydraulic pumping unit toward a front portion of the carrier rig chassis forming the trailer rig chassis.
Chehade teaches a rig comprising a brake hydraulic pumping unit (Chehade [0045-0046]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Arya to include a brake hydraulic pumping unit with a reasonable expectation of success. It is a common practice in the wellbore art to use hydraulic brakes for controlling the raising and lowering of the mast/derrick. This would have would have yielded predictable results of allowing the operator to apply brakes to stop the raising or lowering of the mast Chehade [0045-0046].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya in view of Moberg (US 20220090482).
Regarding claim 19, Arya teaches: The method of claim 1, but does not expressly state: further comprising installing an air compressor on the trailer rig chassis to supply air to operate pneumatic equipment.
Moberg teaches a mobile drilling rig that includes an air compressor (Moberg [0019]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Arya to include an air compressor with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have would have yielded predictable results of allowing the operator to power pneumatic equipment and is a common practice in the wellbore art to use an air compressor for equipment at well sites.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broussard (US 20240200407) in view of Havinga.
Regarding claim 24, Broussard teaches: A trailer service rig converted from a carrier service rig, comprising:
a carrier rig chassis (Broussard 58; [0021-0022]) of the carrier service rig;
a chassis extension (Broussard [0021-0022]) attached to a front end of the carrier rig chassis, wherein the chassis extension displaces a transport system of the carrier rig;
a derrick (Broussard 56; [0021-0022]) coupled to a rear end of the carrier rig chassis;
drawworks (Broussard 11; [0021]) disposed on the carrier rig chassis; one or more rear support axle (Broussard not labeled, near wheels Fig. 5) attached to the carrier rig chassis; and
but does not expressly state: the chassis extension having a connecting area including an underside contact surface configured to couple with a transport vehicle.
Havinga teaches a mobile rig wherein the chassis extension having (Havinga near 22/23/38) a connecting area including an underside contact surface configured to couple with a transport vehicle (Havinga 20).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Broussard to include a connecting area configured to couple with a transport vehicle. This would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the operator to orient (e.g. position over the wellbore/wellsite) and/or transport the rig equipment in a known and conventional way.
Note: See MPEP 2113 which states in part “I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS” and “II. ONCE A PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS FOUND AND A PRIOR ART REJECTION IS MADE, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN NONOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE…The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-5, 8-9, 11, 21, 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Gipson (US 7182163) teaches a mobile rig comprising a derrick/mast and stabilizer jacks.
Lipski (US 20120000721) teaches retrofitting an ICE vehicle for electric power by removing an axle replacing the axle with electric motors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Carroll whose telephone number is (571)272-4808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 2:00-10:00 PM EDT.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/David Carroll/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674