Detailed Action
Status of Claims
In response to the communication filed 08/20/2024 Claims 1-12 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 § 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.
Claim 1-8 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. Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 7 has introduced new matter as the specification does not support the amendment “a pressure relief valve in series with a flow restrictor”. Applicant’s specification does support the use of in line but in series is a more narrow description that is not supported by the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
Non-obviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenneday (US Pat No 2825536) in view of Wood (US Pub No 20120125619).
In regards to claim 1, Kenneday discloses: A system comprising: a cable head cutter tool comprising an outer housing (30), an outer housing connector (52 threads), an internal mandrel (38), and a combination of mechanical (39) and hydraulic devices (38a) which act upon the mandrel (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-58 teaching the movements of the inner mandrel consisting of mechanical and hydraulic devices), wherein the combination of mechanical and hydraulic devices comprises a fishing neck (Kenneday Fig 2; neck of 48), a cutter housing (Kenneday Fig 2a; 50), a seal housing (Kenneday Fig 2; 63), a drive housing (Kenneday Fig 2a; 55), a filling sub (Kenneday Fig 2; 48 contains seal 50 and path 49 col 3 lines 8-10), a balance housing (Kenneday fig 2a 30), a floater sub (Kenneday Fig 2a; 57), and a connection housing (Kenneday fig 2a; col 3 lines 39-41 well tool not shown connected at threads 47); a tool string connected to the outer housing connector (47) (col 3 line 1-5 disclosing wireline tools to be connected to element 47 threads); a line (20) connected to the internal mandrel; Hydraulic device comprises a flow restrictor (Kenneday 38a); wherein the internal mandrel is held biased (46) into a first position within the outer housing (Fig 2a) by a resistance provided by the combination of mechanical and hydraulic devices (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-58 teaching the movements of the inner mandrel consisting of mechanical and hydraulic devices); wherein the internal mandrel is released from the first position by applying tension on the line which exceeds a release tension (Col 3 line 41-47) and then maintaining an applied tension for a duration which exceeds a release duration (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-58 teaching the required overload pressure caused by applied tension which exceeds the release duration), until the internal mandrel is freed from the combination of mechanical and hydraulic devices thereby allowing the internal mandrel to travel unrestrained axially within the outer housing (Col 3 line 52-55 disclosing the release of the collet fingers 42 into chamber 40 and the movement is considered unrestricted upon release as there is nothing in the movement path until the shoulder); and wherein upon being freed the internal mandrel travels toward a second position at which the internal mandrel contacts a line cutting mechanism (41a) disposed within the outer housing (Fig 2a), causing the line cutting mechanism to cut the line (col 3 line 57-61 teaching the movement of the blade interacting with the outer housing and cutting the line).
Kenneday does not disclose a pressure relief valve in series with a flow restrictor in the hydraulic system of the wireline cutting tool.
However, Wood discloses a downhole fishing tool that: a pressure relief valve in series with the flow restrictor; (Wood [0032] a pressure relief valve may be used with a hydraulic chamber positioned in line with a flow restrictor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic chamber of Kenneday to include the pressure relief valve in series with the flow restrictor as taught by Wood to control hydraulic pressure since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the reasonable expectation of success with the predictable result of ensuring proper actuating/biasing pressure for the tool.
In regards to claim 2, Kenneday and Wood disclose: the line is a slickline, a braided line, an electromechanical line, a flexible rod, or a coiled tubing. (20) (col 2 line 26 disclosing the wire line)
In regards to claim 3, Kenneday and Wood disclose: the line has a working tension limit and wherein the outer housing connector has a tensile strength limit greater than the working tension limit of the line. (col 3 line 42-46; disclosing the tensile strength of the outer housing is greater than the tension designed to activate the cutter)
In regards to claim 4, Kenneday and Wood disclose: the line cutting mechanism comprises a mechanical blade-based cutter (41a), a ballistic cutter, or a chemical cutter.
In regards to claim 5, Kenneday and Wood disclose: the line cutting mechanism is coupled to the internal mandrel (col 3 line 57-59 disclosing the movement of the cutter with the internal mandrel), wherein upon being released the internal mandrel travels toward a second position at which the line cutting mechanism contacts an inner profile of the outer housing, causing the line cutting mechanism to cut the line. (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-58 teaching the movements of the inner mandrel consisting of mechanical and hydraulic devices) (Col 3 line 61-63 discussing the cutting of the line)
In regards to claim 6, Kenneday and Wood disclose: while applying the applied tension on the line and before the line cutting mechanism cuts the line, the mandrel is caused to be biased to the first position by reducing the applied tension. (Col 3 line 47-52 disclosing the spring biasing)
In regards to claim 7, Kenneday discloses: A method of releasing a line from a tool string, comprising: connecting a line (20) to a cable head cutter tool (21) with an anchoring method (col 2 line 41-44 disclosing the line anchored into a clamping means) wherein the cable head cutter tool comprises a pressure piston (Kenneday Fig 2a; 37); supporting a tool string in a well with the line (col 3 line 1-5 disclosing wireline tools to be connected to element 47 threads); applying tension to the line (col 3 line 42-45 applying tension); holding the applied tension for a duration (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-53 teaching the required sustained overload pressure caused by applied tension which exceeds the release duration); releasing a mandrel of the cable head cutter tool from a first position when an applied tension exceeds a preset release tension and the duration of the applied tension exceeds a selected release duration (Fig 2a col 3 line 53-55 collet fingers moving into an enlarged space releasing the mandrel exceeding a preset compression limit),
wherein the preset release tension and selected release duration are based upon a resistance provided by a combination of mechanical and hydraulic devices disposed within the cable head cutter tool (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-58 teaching the movements of the inner mandrel consisting of mechanical and hydraulic devices), wherein the combination of mechanical and hydraulic devices comprises a fishing neck (Kenneday Fig 2; neck of 48), a cutter housing (Kenneday Fig 2a; 50), a seal housing (Kenneday Fig 2; 63), a drive housing (Kenneday Fig 2a; 55), a filling sub (Kenneday Fig 2; 48 contains seal 50 and path 49 col 3 lines 8-10), a balance housing (Kenneday fig 2a 30), a floater sub (Kenneday Fig 2a; 57), and a connection housing (Kenneday fig 2a; col 3 lines 39-41 well tool not shown connected at threads 47), wherein at least one of the hydraulic devices comprises a flow restrictor (Kenneday 38a); freeing the mandrel from being coupled to a housing of the cable head cutter tool after the releasing, thereby freeing the mandrel to travel unrestrained within the housing (Col 3 line 52-55 disclosing the release of the collet fingers 42 into chamber 40 and the movement is considered unrestricted upon release as there is nothing in the movement path until the shoulder) which results in a line cutting mechanism (41a) cutting the line; (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-58 teaching the movements of the inner mandrel consisting of mechanical and hydraulic devices with preset limits for cutting the line), and optionally reducing the applied tension below the preset release tension before the selected release duration is exceeded, thereby allowing the mandrel to be biased toward the first position. (Fig 2a col 3 line 47-53 teaching the required sustained overload pressure caused by applied tension which exceeds the release duration or conversely reducing the overload pressure by applied tension before the release duration resetting the line cutter to position one) Kenneday does not disclose a pressure relief valve in series with the flow restrictor in the hydraulic system of the wireline cutting tool.
However, Wood discloses a downhole fishing tool that: a pressure relief valve in series with the flow restrictor; (Wood [0032] a pressure relief valve may be used with a hydraulic chamber positioned in line with a flow restrictor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic chamber of Kenneday to include the pressure relief valve of Wood in series with the flow restrictor to control hydraulic pressure since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the reasonable expectation of success with the predictable result of ensuring proper actuating/biasing pressure for the tool.
In regards to claim 8, Kenneday and Wood disclose: external clamp-on subs or tools (22) are mounted on a deployment line section above a fishing neck of the cable head cutter tool. (48) (col 3 line 39-41 disclosing the attachment point of well tools below the cutter)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9- 12 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/06/2024 have overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-8. The rejection is withdrawn with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, as a pressure relieve valve in series with a flow restrictor is known in the art a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Kenneday (US Pat No 2825536) in view of Wood (US Pub No 20120125619).
ConclusionApplicant'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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights