Ex Parte Hickman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 1, 2018

13276171 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/276,171 10/18/2011 Don Darrell Hickman
23552 7590 10/03/2018
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10260.00lOUSUl 5043
EXAMINER
MULLER, BRYAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPT023552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DON DARRELL HICKMAN
Appeal 2017-011248
Application 13/2 76,171
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 3, 9,
and 10, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons explained below, we do not find error in the
rejections. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-011248
Application 13/2 76,171
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
selected limitations emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A tong assembly system comprising:
a case assembly defining an interior;
a tong head assembly disposed in the interior, the tong
head assembly including an outer ring gear and a tong head
engaged to the outer ring gear, wherein the tong head is adapted
to engage a first sucker rod;
a transmission assembly joined to the case assembly, the
transmission assembly being engaged to a hydraulic motor and
including a backup tong assembly, the backup tong assembly
including:
a backup tong having a first end and an oppositely
disposed second end, the first end being adapted to hold a second
sucker rod;
a load pin engaged to the second end of the backup tong
and an outer casing of the transmission assembly, the load pin
including a plurality of strain gages for measuring a force applied
to the first end of the backup tong, the load pin being adapted to
output a force signal;
a rotary encoder engaged to a shaft of the hydraulic motor
and measuring a rotational distance, the rotary encoder being
adapted to output a position signal;
a hydraulic fluid reservoir in fluid communication with the
hydraulic motor and a valve directing hydraulic fluid from the
hydraulic fluid reservoir to the hydraulic motor in a first position;
the valve directing hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic motor to
the hydraulic fluid reservoir in a second position; and
a selectable controller receiving both the force signal and
the position signal and configured to generate an output signal
for actuating the valve to the second position selectively based
on only one of either the force signal or the position signal, the
output signal being generated when the force signal received by
the controller indicates the force applied is greater than a
predetermined force corresponding to a desired tightness
between the first sucker rod and the second sucker rod, or
2
Appeal 2017-011248
Application 13/2 76,171
alternatively when the position signal received by the controller
indicates the rotational distance is within a predetermined range
of values corresponding to the desired tightness between the first
sucker rod and the second sucker rod.
Rejection
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Conquergood (US 2010/0132180 Al, published June 3,
2010) and Newman (US 6,374,706 Bl, issued Apr. 23, 2002). Final Act. 2-
4.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the pending claims together as a group. Appeal
Br. 10-12. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Conquergood teaches a single structural
embodiment having all the structure recited in claim 1, including a controller
that receives both a force signal and a position signal as claimed in claim 1.
Final Act. 2 (citing e.g., Conquergood ,r,r 36, 72). The Examiner further
finds that Conquergood teaches multiple alternative methods of use,
including a first method to control a valve based on a position signal from an
encoder and a second method of controlling the valve based on a force signal
from the load pin. Id. at 3 (citing, e.g., Conquergood ,r,r 49, 54--55, 76).
"Therefore," the Examiner reasons, "the alternative methods disclosed for
use with the single embodiment set forth in the application would require
some form of switch ( either manual or a simulated electrical switch
controlled by user input to the controller) to allow a user to determine which
method of use is applied as desired." Id. The Examiner finds Conquergood
3
Appeal 2017-011248
Application 13/2 76,171
does not disclose a fluid reservoir for connection with the hydraulic motor
when the valve is in a second position to stop rotation of the drive motor, but
finds the returned fluid, as taught by Newman, would obviously be returned
in some manner to the reservoir of the hydraulic pump system. Id. at 3--4.
Appellant argues paragraph 36 of Conquergood "only discusses the
encoder and is described as being in one exemplary embodiment." Appeal
Br. 10. Appellant contends that "[a]lthough Conquergood may teach first
and second inputs, paragraph [0036} and other sections of Conquergood fail
to disclose a controller actually receiving force signals and position signals."
Id. Appellant "notes that [ Conquergood' s] figures do not disclose a single
embodiment in which the controller actually receives the force signal and the
position signal." Id. Appellant "asserts that Conquergood fails to teach or
suggest a controller that receives both of the signals and then selectively
only relies on one or the other." Id. Appellant further argues that
Conquergood "teaches away from a single embodiment capable of doing
both position and torque" because it teaches separate and distinct
embodiments that use the position and torque information. Id. at 11-12.
Appellant's argument does not inform us of error in the rejection of
claim 1. As the Examiner points out, paragraph 36 of Conquergood
discusses all inputs to the controller, including the rotary encoder 28
(position sensor) and load cell sensor 505 (force sensor). Ans. 2. Moreover,
we agree with the Examiner that all of the inputs are shown in Figure 1 to be
incorporated into a single embodiment. Id.; see Conquergood Fig. 1. Thus,
Appellant's contention that Conquergood's controller would not receive
both position and force signals is not supported by the evidence, which tends
to show the opposite.
4
Appeal 2017-011248
Application 13/2 76,171
Appellant also does not explain why the Examiner errs in finding that
Conquergood would have been understood to have some form of switch for
generating an output signal based on one or the other of the force and
position inputs. The Examiner relies on Conquergood's background
explanation as support for the understanding that "a major advantage
achieved by the apparatus of Conquergood is to incorporate both torque and
position sensors into a single tong device to allow the single device to
operate based on different input as desired for different applications."
Ans. 3 ( citing Conquergood ,r,r 3-16). Appellant does not identify error in
this analysis. We also agree with the Examiner that Conquergood's teaching
of separate control methods suggests one or the other may be relied upon.
See Ans. 3. Thus, we are not persuaded that Conquergood teaches away
from a single embodiment capable of generating an output signal based
selectively on only one of either the force signal or the position signal
received by the controller.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conquergood and
Newman. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 9,
and 10, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, and 10.
5
Appeal 2017-011248
Application 13/2 76,171
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6