DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s reply filed on January 26, 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 12, and 19 have been amended. Claims 8 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 26, 2026 with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the objection to the drawings which contends that the drawing do not illustrate “one or more communication lines embedded within the single solid wire in a non-linear configuration”, the Applicant has indicated that drawings clearly indicate these features. Specifically, applicant has indicated that Figure 1 show the downhole tool string, slickline, and embedded communications structure in cross section. However, on review of Figure 1 the only representation of the slickline and embedded communications structure is a single line. This clearly does not show any structures embedded within the slickline. Applicant has indicated that Figures 2-4 illustrate the mono-cable construction including the internal embedded lines(s). Upon review of Figures 2-4, the slickline and embedded structures are once again illustrated by a single line 110 in Figure 2. Review of Figure 3 illustrates an example control loop with no indication of a slickline or embedded features and Figure 4 illustrates an example method. Neither Figures 3 and 4 show any illustration of the mono-cable / slickline structure or embedded features. As such it is unclear as to how Figures 1-4 can be considered to show “one or more communication lines embedded within a single-solid wire in a non-linear configuration”. Applicant has argued that the features of “embedded” and “non-linear” are already depicted at the level required by 37 CFR 1.83 (a) and that the Office is not permitted to require drawings showing microscopic internal geometry when the claim language does not require depiction at that scale and the specification already describes the structure in the text. However, it is the Examiner’s position that drawing which show the features of “one of more communication lines embedded within the single solid wire in a non-linear configuration” as claimed are essential for a proper understanding of the invention. As such these features should be illustrated in the drawings.
Applicant's arguments filed on January 26, 2026 with respect to rejections of claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 and 22-24 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the Specification as filed on October 12, 2016 (hereinafter Specification) provides support for the “ recitation of mechanically decoupled from axial strain” the Examiner disagrees. Applicant has indicated that par [0014] of the Specification recites “The communication line or lines of the mono- cable may be non-linearly coupled with the solid wire such that strain that exceeds a maximum allowable strain of the communication line, but not a maximum allowable strain of the solid wire, does not cause failure of the communication line or the mono- cable.” and that this recitation is exactly the meaning of mechanical decoupling. However, although par [0014] may disclose one form of “mechanically decoupling” the Specification does not provide support for all forms of mechanically decoupling.
With respect to the recitations of “sinusoidal or serpentine path along the longitudinal axis” and the “maintain signal integrity during dynamic deploy”, the Examiner has withdrawn these portions of the rejection due to the amendments to the claims and the arguments regarding “signal integrity”.
Applicant's arguments filed on January 26, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s have argued that the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 under 35 USC 102 as unpatentable over Ramos et al., US 2006/0157239 (hereinafter Ramos) in view of Taverner et al., US 2012/0111104 (hereinafter Taverner).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Applicant has argued that Ramos and Taverner fail to disclose a single solid metallic wire, with communication line(s) embedded within it, arranged in a non-linear undulating or wave-like) path or configuration, and mechanically decoupled from axial strain. The Examiner disagrees with this position.
Regarding the single solid metallic wire with embedded communication line, Applicant has argued that Ramos discloses a fiber inside a conduit or tubing and not embedded inside a drawn slickline wire and a braided/ stranded or tubular arrangement, not a single metallic wire containing an embedded fiber.
Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “embedded inside a drawn slickline wire”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, Ramos clearly discloses a communication line embedded within a single solid wire. Ramos discloses a mono-cable (slickline 100, Fig 6, par [0013]), [0042]) which is also known as a slickline (see Specification, par [0012]). The mono-cable (Ramos 100) includes a single solid wire (a slickline is a single solid wire by definition) having one or more communication lines, in the form of optical fiber (Ramos 14). The optical fiber (Ramos 14) is clearly stated as being embedded within the mono-cable (Ramos 100, par [0042]).
Next, Applicant has argued that Ramos teaches a braided/stranded or tubular arrangement, not a single metallic wire contain an embedded fiber. Again the Examiner asserts that Ramos clearly discloses a mono-cable (slickline 100, Fig 6, par [0013]), [0042]) which is also known as a slickline (see Specification). The mono-cable (Ramos 100) includes a single solid wire (a slickline is a single solid wire by definition) having one or more communication lines, in the form of optical fiber (Ramos 14) (Fig 6, par [0042]).
Third, Applicant has argued that Ramos does not disclose a non-linear embedded configuration, While the Examiner agrees that Ramos discloses a straight routing of optical fiber embedded within the monocable (100), Ramos was also not relied upon to meet the limations of “a non-linear embed configuration” as indicated in the current rejection. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further applicant has argued that Taverner discloses a fiber in metal tubing within a cable and not in a solid metallic wire and that embedding of fiber inside a hollow tube is fundamentally difference than embedding fiber within the metal body of a solid slickline. The Examiner would like to point out that although the optical fibers (Taverner 308) are embedded within a tube (Taverner 303) it is not a hollow tube and is instead filled with a filler material (Taverner 310) (Taverner par [0029]-[0030]). Additionally, Ramos already teaches the limitations of a communication line (Ramos optical fiber 14) embedded within a single solid metallic wire (Ramos 100) and Taverner was relied upon for the limitations of the non-linear configuration comprising a sinusoidal or serpentine path along the longitudinal axis of the wire and the additional features arising from said path. Thus it is the Examiner’s position that the current rejection as unpatentable over Ramos in view of Taverner clearly meets the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 19.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the rationale for the combination of Ramos and Taverner relies on hindsight, the Examiner disagrees. In the current rejection Ramos was relied upon to meet all the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 19 with the exception of “one or more communication lines embedded within the single solid metallic wire in a non-linear configuration, the non-linear configuration comprising a sinusoidal or serpentine path along the longitudinal axis of the wire, wherein the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable, configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment”. Taverner was relied upon in order to teach one or more communication lines (Taverner optical fiber 308) embedded within the cable (215) (Taverner as shown in Fig 3) in a non-linear configuration comprising a sinusoidal or serpentine path along the longitudinal axis of the cable (215) (the serpentine orientation of an optical fiber 308 within the inner tube 303, shown in Fig 4, par [0030]). The one or more communication lines (308) are mechanically decoupled (not retained relative to the inner tube 303) from axial strain in the cable (serpentine orientation of optical fiber 308 within inner tube 303 results in intermittent contact point 402 therebetween, Fig 4, par [0030]), configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment (externally generated acoustic disturbances are masked by a cable in which the fiber is deployed, par [0008]). The motivation for modifying Ramos with Taverner is clearly stated in the rejection as being to minimize the contact points between the communication lines and the cable which would increase the sensitivity of the mono-cable as stated by Taverner (Taverner, abstract, par [0007]-[0008]).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20, and 22-24, the arguments as presented above with respect to claims 1, 12, and 19 are equally applicable to claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20, and 22-24.
Drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more communication lines embedded within the single solid wire in a non-linear configuration” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 19: Claims 1, 12, and 19 include the recitation of “the one of more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain” has not been described in the Specification. Specifically, the Applicant has indicated that support for the one of more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain has been provided in paragraph [0014]. However, there is no disclosure in paragraph [0014] that indicates that the one or more communication lines are “mechanically decoupled” from anything. Instead paragraph [0014] discloses that the commination line or lines are non-linearly coupled with the solid wire in order to avoid failure of the communication line or the mono-cable. While this may be one method of “mechanically decoupling” the Specification does not provide for all forms of mechanically decoupling and there is nothing in the Specification regarding “one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable”.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20, and 22-24 are subsumed by the previously noted rejections because of their dependence wither directly or indirectly. Appropriate correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos et al., US 2006/0157239 (hereinafter Ramos) in view of Taverner et al., US 2012/0111104 (hereinafter Taverner).
Claim 1: Ramos discloses a downhole tool system (logging system 10), comprising:
a mono-cable (slickline 100, Fig 6, par [0013], [0042]) to support a downhole tool string (logging tool 12), the mono-cable (100) comprising a single solid wire having one or more communication lines (optical fiber 14) embedded within the single solid wire (optical fiber 14 is embedded within a slickline 100, Fig 2, 6, par [0042]) the one or more communication lines (14) sized to communicate instructions that comprise at least one of logic or data to the downhole tool string (data collected by the sensor 17 of logging tool 12 is transmitted real time to the surface via the fiber optic line 14, tool status reports may also be sent from the logging tool 12 through the fiber optic line 14, par [0031]);
a downhole tool (logging tool 12) coupled to the single solid wire (100, Fig 2, 6) in the downhole tool string (see Fig 2, 6, par [0042]); and
a controller (acquisition unit 44) comprising a processor and a memory device coupled to the processor (acquisition unit 44 is a computer unit, such as a laptop computer, par [0039]), the memory device comprising a set of instruction that, when executed by the processor (comprising:
generating a command (activation signal) to the downhole tool (12) (downhole tools described above may be activated by optical signals sent through the fiber optic line 14, par [0064]);
transmitting the command to the downhole tool (210) (surface optical transmitter 20 sends an unmodulated signal to the logging tool 10, par [0060], [0068]); and
receiving, on the one or more communication lines (14), data from the downhole tool (12) based on execution of the command by the downhole tool (modulator 48 modulates the signal so as to encode the data onto the signal that returns to the acquisition unit 44, sensor 17 reflects a return optical signal back to the acquisition unit 44 with the relevant measurement encoded therein, par [0068]).
Ramos fails to disclose having one or more communication lines embedded within the single solid metallic wire in a non-linear configuration, the non-linear configuration comprising an undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis of the wire, wherein the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable, configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment.
Taverner discloses a downhole cable (cable 215 inside wellbore 102) with communication lines (optical fiber 308) embedded within the cable (215) (as shown in Fig 3) in a non-linear configuration comprising a undulating or wavelike (as shown in Fig 4) path along the longitudinal axis of the cable (215) (the serpentine orientation of an optical fiber 308 within the inner tube 303, shown in Fig 4, par [0030]). The one or more communication lines (308) are mechanically decoupled (not retained relative to the inner tube 303) from axial strain in the cable (serpentine orientation of optical fiber 308 within inner tube 303 results in intermittent contact point 402 therebetween, Fig 4, par [0030]), configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment (externally generated acoustic disturbances are masked by a cable in which the fiber is deployed, par [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the embedded communication line of Ramos to be orientated in an undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis of the wire such that the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable as disclosed by Taverner, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis would have yielded the predictable results of minimizing the contact points between the communication lines and the cable, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the mono-cable (Taverner, abstract, par [0007]-[0008]).
Claim 12: Ramos discloses method for controlling a downhole tool, comprising:
running a downhole tool (logging tool 12) coupled to a mono-cable (slickline 100, Fig 6, par [0013], [0042]) into a wellbore (see Fig 2), the mono-cable (100) comprising a single solid wire having one or more communication lines (optical fiber 14) embedded within the single solid wire (optical fiber 14 is embedded within a slickline 100, Fig 2, 6, par [0042]);
generating a command (activation signal) to the downhole tool (12) (downhole tools described above may be activated by optical signals sent through the fiber optic line 14, par [0064]), the command comprising at least one of logic or data (downhole tools described above may be activated by optical signals sent through the fiber optic line 14, par [0064]);
transmitting on the one or more communication lines (14), the command to the downhole tool (12) (surface optical transmitter 20 sends an unmodulated signal to the logging tool 10, par [0060], [0068]); and
receiving, on the one or more communication lines (14), data from the downhole tool (12) based on execution of the command by the downhole tool (modulator 48 modulates the signal so as to encode the data onto the signal that returns to the acquisition unit 44, sensor 17 reflects a return optical signal back to the acquisition unit 44 with the relevant measurement encoded therein, par [0068]).
Ramos fails to disclose having one or more communication lines embedded within the single solid metallic wire in a non-linear configuration, the non-linear configuration comprising a undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis of the wire, wherein the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable, configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment.
Taverner discloses a downhole cable (cable 215 inside wellbore 102) with communication lines (optical fiber 308) embedded within the cable (215) (as shown in Fig 3) in a non-linear configuration comprising a undulating or wave-like (as shown in Fig 4) path along the longitudinal axis of the cable (215) (the serpentine orientation of an optical fiber 308 within the inner tube 303, shown in Fig 4, par [0030]). The one or more communication lines (308) are mechanically decoupled (not retained relative to the inner tube 303) from axial strain in the cable (serpentine orientation of optical fiber 308 within inner tube 303 results in intermittent contact point 402 therebetween, Fig 4, par [0030]), configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment (externally generated acoustic disturbances are masked by a cable in which the fiber is deployed, par [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the embedded communication line of Ramos to be orientated in an undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis of the wire such that the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable as disclosed by Taverner, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis would have yielded the predictable results of minimizing the contact points between the communication lines and the cable, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the mono-cable (Taverner, abstract, par [0007]-[0008]).
Claim 19: Ramos discloses a method for controlling a downhole tool, comprising:
deploying a downhole tool (logging tool 12) on a slickline (slickline 100, Fig 6, par [0013], [0042]) in a wellbore (see Fig 2, 6) the slickline (100) including a single solid wire having one or more communication lines (optical fiber 14) embedded within the single solid wire (optical fiber 14 is embedded within a slickline 100, Fig 2, 6, par [0042]);
receiving a command from uphole that comprises at least one of data or logic at the downhole tool on the slickline (100) from a controller (acquisition unit 44 is a computer unit, such as a laptop computer, par [0039]) (downhole tools described above may be activated by optical signals sent through the fiber optic line 14, par [0064]);
actuating the downhole tool (12), based on the command, with an actuator communicably coupled to the controller (44) on the one or more communication lines (downhole tools described above may be activated by optical signals sent through the fiber optic line 14, par [0064]]); and
transmitting feedback associated with the actuation of the downhole tool (210) at the controller on the one or more communication lines (14) (modulator 48 modulates the signal so as to encode the data onto the signal that returns to the acquisition unit 44, sensor 17 reflects a return optical signal back to the acquisition unit 44 with the relevant measurement encoded therein, par [0068]).
Ramos fails to disclose having one or more communication lines embedded within the single solid metallic wire in a non-linear configuration, the non-linear configuration comprising an undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis of the wire, wherein the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable, configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment.
Taverner discloses a downhole cable (cable 215 inside wellbore 102) with communication lines (optical fiber 308) embedded within the cable (215) (as shown in Fig 3) in a non-linear configuration comprising a undulating or wave-like (as shown in Fig 4) path along the longitudinal axis of the cable (215) (the serpentine orientation of an optical fiber 308 within the inner tube 303, shown in Fig 4, par [0030]). The one or more communication lines (308) are mechanically decoupled (not retained relative to the inner tube 303) from axial strain in the cable (serpentine orientation of optical fiber 308 within inner tube 303 results in intermittent contact point 402 therebetween, Fig 4, par [0030]), configured to maintain signal integrity during dynamic deployment (externally generated acoustic disturbances are masked by a cable in which the fiber is deployed, par [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the embedded communication line of Ramos to be orientated in an undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis of the wire such that the one or more communication lines are mechanically decoupled from axial strain in the mono-cable as disclosed by Taverner, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the undulating or wave-like path along the longitudinal axis would have yielded the predictable results of minimizing the contact points between the communication lines and the cable, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the mono-cable (Taverner, abstract, par [0007]-[0008]).
Claim 2: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses a power source electrically coupled with the downhole tool string (Ramos, optical transmitter may be located downhole] and linked to a downhole battery for power, par [0046]).
Claim 3: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses the power source comprises a portion of the downhole tool (Ramos, optical transmitter may be located downhole] and linked to a downhole battery for power, par [0046]).
Claim 4: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses the power source comprises a battery (Ramos, optical transmitter may be located downhole] and linked to a downhole battery for power, par [0046]).
Claim 5: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses the downhole tool (12) comprises a sensor (Ramos, sensor 17 may include pressure sensor 22, a flow sensor such as spinner 26, a chemical properly sensor 28, or a casing collar locator 30), and the data from the downhole tool is generated by the sensor (Ramos, each sensor 17 collects its data, and a signal representative of the data is transmitted via the optical fiber 14, par [0023]).
Claims 6 and 17: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses the one or more communication lines comprises an optical fiber strand or a conductor (Ramos, data collected by the sensor 17 of logging tool 12 is transmitted real time to the surface via the fiber optic line 14, tool status reports may also be sent from the logging tool 12 through the fiber optic line 14, par [0031]).
Claim 7: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, does not specifically disclose the one or more communication lines (14) comprises a plurality of optical fiber strands (Ramos, the use of more than one fiber line 14 provides redundancy to the real time transmission of the data from the logging tool 12 to the surface, par [0041]).
Claims 9 and 18: Bramlage, as modified by Taverner, discloses the mono-cable comprises a slickline (Ramos, slickline 100, Fig 2, 6, par [0013], [0042]).
Claim 14: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses performing an operation (logging) with the downhole tool (12) in the wellbore (wellbore 5) based on the command (Ramos, downhole tools described above may be activated by optical signals sent through the fiber optic line 14, par [0064], surface optical transmitter 20 sends an unmodulated signal to the logging tool 12, modulator 48 modulates the signal so as to encode the data onto the signal that returns to the acquisition unit 44, par [0068]).
Claim 15: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses supplying power to the downhole tool (12), with a power source that comprises a portion of the downhole tool (12), to perform the operation (Ramos, optical transmitter may be located downhole and linked to a downhole battery for power, par [0046]).
Claim 16: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses wherein receiving, on the one or more communication lines (14), data from the downhole tool (12) based on execution of the command by the downhole tool comprises: receiving, on the one or more communication lines (14), data from a sensor (sensor 17) (Ramos, (Ramos, each sensor 17 collects its data, and a signal representative of the data is transmitted via the optical fiber 14, par [0023], sensor 17 may include pressure sensor 22, a flow sensor such as spinner 26, a chemical properly sensor 28, or a casing collar locator 30) that comprises a portion of the downhole tool string (see Fig 2).
Claim 20: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses the one or more communication lines comprise one or more optical fiber stands (Ramos, data collected by the sensor 17 of logging tool 12 is transmitted real time to the surface via the fiber optic line 14, tool status reports may also be sent from the logging tool 12 through the fiber optic line 14, par [0031]), and the command and the feedback are received and transmitted, respectively, on the one or more optical fiber strands (14) (surface optical transmitter 20 sends an unmodulated signal to the logging tool 12, modulator 48 modulates the signal so as to encode the data onto the signal that returns to the acquisition unit 44, par [0068]).
Claim 23: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses generating the feedback associated with the actuation of the downhole tool (12) with one or more sensors (sensor 17, par [0032]) communicably coupled with the downhole (modulator 48 modulates the signal so as to encode the data onto the signal that returns to the acquisition unit 44, sensor 17 reflects a return optical signal back to the acquisition unit 44 with the relevant measurement encoded therein, par [0068]).
Claim 24: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, discloses the controller (44) is positioned at or near a terranean surface (Ramos, acquisition system in location at the surface in a truck 44, see Fig 2).
Claims 11, 13, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos as modified by Taverner as applied to claims 1, 12, and 19 and further in view of Zaeper et al., US 2009/0250225 (Zaeper).
Claims 11 and 13: Ramos and Taverner are silent as to wherein the command comprises a first command, and the operations further comprise: based on the received data from the downhole tool, generating a second command to the downhole tool, the second command different than the first command; and transmitting, on the one or more communication lines, the second command to the downhole tool.
Zaeper discloses a control system for a downhole device in a wellbore (abstract). The processing unit (8) transmits a first command (command signal 7). The command signal (7) is a control signal for providing closed-loop control of a task (16) (Fig 2, par [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the operations of Ramos and Taverner, to include generating a second command on the one of more communication lines to the downhole tool based on data received from the downhole tool as disclosed by Zaeper. This modification would have allowed adjustments to the downhole operations based data acquired from the downhole tool, thereby optimizing downhole operations, through closed-loop control over a downhole task (Zaeper, Fig 2, par [0030]).
Claim 22: Ramos and Taverner are is silent as to performing an operation with the downhole tool based on the received feedback.
Zaeper discloses a control system for a downhole device in a wellbore (abstract). The processing unit (8) transmits a first command (command signal 7). The command signal (7) is a control signal for providing closed-loop control of a task (16) (Fig 2, par [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the operations of Ramos and Taverner to include performing an operation with the downhole tool based on the received feedback.as disclosed by Zaeper. This modification would have allowed adjustments to the downhole operations based data acquired from the downhole tool, thereby optimizing downhole operations, through closed-loop control over a downhole task (Zaeper, Fig 2, par [0030]).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos as modified by Taverner as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sanderlin, US 2007/0007016 (hereinafter Sanderlin).
Claim 10: Ramos, as modified by Taverner, is silent as to the controller comprises a portion of the downhole tool string.
Sanderlin discloses an apparatus for performing a downhole operation include a tool string (11) supported by a slickline (12). The system includes a downhole controller (10) for storing programmed instructions and preset sensor thresholds (par [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller of Ramos to be located downhole as part of the downhole tool string as disclosed by Sanderlin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-24 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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 E 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676