DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The objection to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding claims 1, 10, 21 and 25, the claims have been rejected under new grounds. As such, the Applicant’s arguments regarding these claims are moot.
The Applicant argues that “if the standoffs 12 of Sherman were mounted to the extension line 24 of Denoix, the extension line 24 of Denoix could not be inserted into the umbilical pipe 26. This is because extension line 24 of Denoix must be pulled through a hydraulic latch sub-assembly 18 to be hosted inside the umbilical pipe 26 before it can be run into the well. The extension line 24 would simply not fit through the hydraulic latch sub-assembly 18 with the standoffs 18 attached. Accordingly, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the extension line of Denoix with the standoffs of Sherman because such a modification would destroy the intended functionality of the Denoix system. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Denoix and Sherman is erroneous and Claims 1, 10, 21, and 25 would not be obvious in view of the prior art as relied on by the Examiner. “
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Sherman very clearly discloses that the diameter 56 of the standoff 12 will vary depending on the factors of the operation. Therefore, the diameter of the standoff 12 can be sized to accommodate the wellbore operation of Denoix. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to size the diameter of the standoffs 12 that is molded to the extension line 24 such that the standoffs 12 do not interfere with the wellbore operation of Denoix. Rather, the standoffs will provide the benefit of reducing the friction between the extension line 24 of Denoix and the wellbore wall during the deployment of the extension line 24 (Abstract, Sherman). Therefore, the combination of Denoix and Sherman is proper and the rejection to the above claims will be maintained.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, 11-13, 21, 22, 24 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoix et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8479830) in view of Sherman (U.S. Publication No. 20150167403).
In regards to claim 1, Denoix teaches a downhole tool deployment system (Abstract. Figs. 2 and 3) the system comprising:
a tool string (20; Fig. 2) for insertion into a well (Col. 4, lines 23-25);
a deployment wireline cable (wireline cable 12; Fig. 2) configured for attachment to the tool string (wireline cable 12 is attached to BHA 20 via cable 24) to lower the tools string into the well (wireline cable 12 is attached to umbilical cable 24, which is connected to tool string 20, then used to lower the tool string 20 into the borehole; Fig. 1,2, Col. 4, lines 11-18, Col. 6, lines 43-65);
an extension line (24) configured for attachment to the deployment wireline cable (12) and the tool string (20) for insertion between the deployment wireline cable (12) and the tool string (20; as shown in the steps of Fig.2, the line extension 24 is inserted between the tool string 20 and wireline cable 12.), the line extension (24) having the same or different properties from the deployment wireline cable (cable 24 has different properties from wireline cable 12 in that 24 is a umbilical cable and 12 is a wireline cable; Col. 5 lines 13-20) and in contact with the borehole wall of the well (24 is descended into the well with tool 20. Therefore, because the line extension 24 is within the well, it is indirectly in contact with the wall of the well; Col. 5, lines 12-17. Note that the claim does specify the type of “contact” that is required between the line extension and the borehole wall and therefore does not preclude indirect contact.); and
wherein the extension line (24) provides load bearing support for the tool string (cable 24 provides load bearing support to BHA 20 because 20 suspends from cable 24. Furthermore, cable 24 is hung off in the well using a standard T-bar 28 while the 20 is suspended from the bottom of cable 24 ; Fig. 3, Col. 4 lines 23-42) and the deployment wireline cable (12) provides load bearing support for the extension line (24) and the tool string (20; Wireline cable 12 is connected to 24, the wireline cable 12 is lowered into the wellbore while 24 and 20 suspend from 12. As such, 12 provides load bearing support to cable 24 and BHA 20; Col. 6, lines 43-65, Fig. 2).
Denoix is silent regarding the extension line including stand-offs, the standoffs attached to or integrated with the extension line prior to attachment to the deployment wireline cable and the tool string.
Sherman, drawn to a cable for use in a wellbore, discloses that the cable includes stand-offs (Each of the standoffs 12 are spaced apart at some distance 14 from the adjacent standoff 12 on the cable 10. Each standoff 12 may be molded in place; pp[0027], Fig.1).
Therefore, 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 extension line of Denoix such that it includes standoffs, as taught by Sherman, with a reasonable expectation of success as the standoffs will reduce friction between the extension line of Denoix and the wellbore wall (Abstract).
In light of the above modification, the combination of Denoix and Sherman teaches the standoffs attached to or integrated with the extension line prior to attachment to the deployment wireline cable and the tool string (The extension line 24 of Denoix will include standoffs 12 of Sherman that are spaced apart and molded to the length of the extension line 24. As shown in Fig. 2 of Denoix, extension line 24 (with the standoffs already integrated to the line) and tool string 20 will be placed within the wellbore first, then the deployment line 12 will be attached to the extension line 24.).
In regards to claim 2, Denoix further teaches comprising: an interconnecting tool (spoolable cable splice 30) positioned between the line extension and the deployment wireline cable (a spoolable cable splice 30 is required that connects the umbilical cable 24 to the wireline cable 12 mechanically and preferably electrically as well; Col. 4, lines 45-46, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 10, Denoix teaches a method of deploying a tool string into a well, the method comprising:
hanging a tool string (20) from a rig up plate (T-bar 28; Fig. 2) into a well at a rig floor (34);
attaching a extension line (cable 24) to the tool string (20) at the rig floor (34) and to be exposed to a borehole environment in the well (24 is descended into the well with tool 20. Therefore, because the line extension 24 is within the well, it is exposed to the borehole environment of the well; Col. 5, lines 12-17) such that the extension line (24) provides load bearing support to the tool string (cable 24 provides load bearing support to BHA 20 because 20 suspends from cable 24. Furthermore, cable 24 is hung off in the well using a standard T-bar 28 while the 20 is suspended from the bottom of cable 24 ; Fig. 2, 3, Col. 4 lines 23-42);
inserting the tool string (20) supported by the line extension (24) into the well until a top connection (hydraulic latch sub (HLS) 18) of the line extension (24; Fig. 3) is at the rig floor (34);
attaching a deployment wireline cable (wireline cable 12; Fig. 3) to the top connection of the extension line (12 is attached to the top of 24 via a spoolable cable splice 30; Col. 4, lines 45-46, Fig. 2) at the rig floor (34) such that the deployment wireline cable (12) provides load bearing support to the extension line (24) and the tool string (20; Wireline cable 12 is connected to 24, the wireline cable 12 is lowered into the wellbore while 24 and 20 suspend from 12. As such, 12 provides load bearing support to cable 24 and BHA 20; Col. 6, lines 43-65, Fig. 1,2), the extension line having the same or different properties than the deployment line (cable 24 has different properties from wireline cable 12 in that 24 is a umbilical cable and 12 is a wireline cable; Col. 5 lines 13-20); and
inserting the deployment wireline cable supporting the extension line supporting the tool string into the well (20; Wireline cable 12 is connected to 24 which is connected to tool string 20, the wireline cable 12 is lowered into the wellbore while 24 and 20 suspend from 12. As such, 12 provides load bearing support to cable 24 and BHA 20; Col. 6, lines 43-65, Fig. 1,2)).
Denoix is silent regarding the extension line with standoffs; after the step of providing the extension line with standoffs, attaching the extension line with standoffs to the tool string at the rig floor.
Sherman, drawn to a cable for use in a wellbore, discloses that the cable with stand-offs (Each of the standoffs 12 are spaced apart at some distance 14 from the adjacent standoff 12 on the cable 10. Each standoff 12 may be molded in place; pp[0027], Fig.1).
Therefore, 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 extension line of Denoix such that it includes standoffs, as taught by Sherman, with a reasonable expectation of success as the standoffs will reduce friction between the extension line of Denoix and the wellbore wall (Abstract).
In light of the above modification, the combination of Denoix and Sherman teaches after the step of providing the extension line with standoffs, attaching the extension line with standoffs to the tool string at the rig floor (The extension line 24 of Denoix will include standoffs 12 of Sherman that are spaced apart and molded to the length of the extension line 24. As shown in Fig. 2 of Denoix, extension line 24 (with the standoffs already integrated to the line) and tool string 20 will be placed within the wellbore first, then the deployment line 12 will be attached to the extension line 24.).
In regards to claim 11, Denoix further teaches wherein the tool string, extension line, and deployment wireline cable are connected with tool connections (BHA 20, cable 24 and wireline cable are all connected via tool connections. The BHA 20 is now threaded onto the umbilical cable 24 and a spoolable cable splice 30 is required that connects the umbilical cable 24 to the wireline cable 12 mechanically and preferably electrically as well; Col. 4, lines 45-46 and 53-54, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 13, Denoix further teaches comprising: inserting an interconnecting tool (a spoolable cable splice 30) positioned between the extension line and the deployment wireline cable (a spoolable cable splice 30 is required that connects the umbilical cable 24 to the wireline cable 12 mechanically and preferably electrically as well; Col. 4, lines 45-46, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 21, Denoix teaches a downhole tool deployment system (Abstract. Figs. 2 and 3) the system comprising:
a tool string (20; Fig. 2) for insertion into a well (Col. 4, lines 23-25);
a deployment flexible rod (wireline cable 12; Fig. 2) configured for attachment to the tool string (wireline cable 12 is attached to BHA 20 via cable 24) to lower the tool string into the well (wireline cable 12 is attached to umbilical cable 24, which is connected to tool string 20, then used to lower the tool string 20 into the borehole; Fig. 1,2, Col. 4, lines 11-18, Col. 6, lines 43-65);
a extension line (24) configured for attachment to the deployment flexible rod (12) and the tool string (20) for insertion between a deployment flexible rod (12) and the tool string (20; as shown in the steps of Fig.2, the line extension 24 is inserted between the tool string 20 and wireline cable 12.), the extension line (24) having the same or different properties from the deployment wireline cable (cable 24 has different properties from wireline cable 12 in that 24 is a umbilical cable and 12 is a wireline cable; Col. 5 lines 13-20); and
wherein the extension line (24) provides load bearing support for the tool string (cable 24 provides load bearing support to BHA 20 because 20 suspends from cable 24. Furthermore, cable 24 is hung off in the well using a standard T-bar 28 while the 20 is suspended from the bottom of cable 24 ; Fig. 3, Col. 4 lines 23-42) and the deployment flexible rod (12) provides load bearing support for the line extension (24) and the tool string (20; Wireline cable 12 is connected to 24, the wireline cable 12 is lowered into the wellbore while 24 and 20 suspend from 12. As such, 12 provides load bearing support to cable 24 and BHA 20; Col. 6, lines 43-65, Fig. 2).
Denoix is silent regarding the extension line including stand-offs; the standoffs attached to or integrated with the extension line prior to attachment to the deployment flexible rod and the tool string
Sherman, drawn to a cable for use in a wellbore, discloses that the cable includes stand-offs (Each of the standoffs 12 are spaced apart at some distance 14 from the adjacent standoff 12 on the cable 10. Each standoff 12 may be molded in place; pp[0027], Fig.1).
Therefore, 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 extension line of Denoix such that it includes standoffs, as taught by Sherman, with a reasonable expectation of success as the standoffs will reduce friction between the extension line of Denoix and the wellbore wall (Abstract).
In light of the above modification, the combination of Denoix and Sherman teaches the standoffs attached to or integrated with the extension line prior to attachment to the deployment wireline cable and the tool string (The extension line 24 of Denoix will include standoffs 12 of Sherman that are spaced apart and molded to the length of the extension line 24. As shown in Fig. 2 of Denoix, extension line 24 (with the standoffs already integrated to the line) and tool string 20 will be placed within the wellbore first, then the deployment line 12 will be attached to the extension line 24.).
In regards to claim 22, Denoix further teaches comprising: an interconnecting tool (spoolable cable splice 30) positioned between the line extension and the deployment flexible rod (a spoolable cable splice 30 is required that connects the umbilical cable 24 to the wireline cable 12 mechanically and preferably electrically as well; Col. 4, lines 45-46, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 25, Denoix teaches a method of deploying a tool string into a well, the method comprising:
hanging a tool string (20) from a rig up plate (T-bar 28; Fig. 2) into a well at a rig floor (34);
providing an extension line (cable 24)
attaching a line extension (cable 24) to the tool string (20) at the rig floor (34) and to be exposed to a borehole environment in the well (24 is descended into the well with tool 20. Therefore, because the line extension 24 is within the well, it is exposed to the borehole environment of the well; Col. 5, lines 12-17) such that the extension line (24) provides load bearing support to the tool string (cable 24 provides load bearing support to BHA 20 because 20 suspends from cable 24. Furthermore, cable 24 is hung off in the well using a standard T-bar 28 while the 20 is suspended from the bottom of cable 24 ; Fig. 2, 3, Col. 4 lines 23-42);
inserting the tool string (20) supported by the extension line (24) into the well until a top connection (hydraulic latch sub (HLS) 18) of the extension line (24; Fig. 3) is at the rig floor (34);
attaching a deployment flexible rod (wireline cable 12; Fig. 3) to the top connection of the line extension (12 is attached to the top of 24 via a spoolable cable splice 30; Col. 4, lines 45-46, Fig. 2) at the rig floor (34) such that t the deployment flexible rod (12) provides load bearing support to the line extension (24) and the tool string (20; Wireline cable 12 is connected to 24, the wireline cable 12 is lowered into the wellbore while 24 and 20 suspend from 12. As such, 12 provides load bearing support to cable 24 and BHA 20; Col. 6, lines 43-65, Fig. 1,2), the extension line having the same or different properties than the deployment line (cable 24 has different properties from wireline cable 12 in that 24 is a umbilical cable and 12 is a wireline cable; Col. 5 lines 13-20); and
inserting the deployment flexible rod supporting the extension line supporting the tool string into the well (20; Wireline cable 12 is connected to 24 which is connected to tool string 20, the wireline cable 12 is lowered into the wellbore while 24 and 20 suspend from 12. As such, 12 provides load bearing support to cable 24 and BHA 20; Col. 6, lines 43-65, Fig. 1,2)).
Denoix is silent regarding the extension line with stand-offs; after the step of providing the extension line with standoffs, attaching the extension line with the standoffs to the tool string with the rig floor.
Sherman, drawn to a cable for use in a wellbore, discloses that the cable includes stand-offs (Each of the standoffs 12 are spaced apart at some distance 14 from the adjacent standoff 12 on the cable 10. Each standoff 12 may be molded in place; pp[0027], Fig.1).
Therefore, 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 extension line of Denoix such that it includes standoffs, as taught by Sherman, with a reasonable expectation of success as the standoffs will reduce friction between the extension line of Denoix and the wellbore wall (Abstract).
In light of the above modification, the combination of Denoix and Sherman teaches after the step of providing the extension line with standoffs, attaching the extension line with the standoffs to the tool string at the rig floor. (The extension line 24 of Denoix will include standoffs 12 of Sherman that are spaced apart and molded to the length of the extension line 24. As shown in Fig. 2 of Denoix, extension line 24 (with the standoffs already integrated to the line) is attached to the tool string 20 at the rig floor 34.).
In regards to claim 26, Denoix further teaches wherein the tool string, extension line, and deployment wireline cable are connected with tool connections (BHA 20, cable 24 and wireline cable are all connected via tool connections. The BHA 20 is now threaded onto the umbilical cable 24 and a spoolable cable splice 30 is required that connects the umbilical cable 24 to the wireline cable 12 mechanically and preferably electrically as well; Col. 4, lines 45-46 and 53-54, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 28, Denoix further teaches comprising: inserting an interconnecting tool (a spoolable cable splice 30) positioned between the extension line and the deployment wireline cable (a spoolable cable splice 30 is required that connects the umbilical cable 24 to the wireline cable 12 mechanically and preferably electrically as well; Col. 4, lines 45-46, Fig. 2).
In regards to claims 6 ,12, 24 and 27, the combination of Denoix and Sherman teaches the system of claim 1, method of claim 10, system of claim 21 and method of claim 25, respectively.
The combination is silent regarding wherein the built in standoffs have a short prolate ellipsoid
Sherman, in a different embodiment, discloses wherein the built in standoffs (126; Fig. 8, pp[0034]) have a short prolate ellipsoid shape (Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 stand-offs of the combination such that they have a short prolate ellipsoid shape, as taught by Sherman since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP2144.04 (B).
Claim(s) 4, 15, 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denoix et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8479830) in view of Sherman (U.S. Publication No. 20150167403) and in further view of Gibson (U.S. Publication No. 20080060808).
In regards to claims 4, 15, 23 and 29, the combination of Denoix and Sherman teaches the system of claim 2, the method of claim 13, the system of claim 22 and method of claim 28.
The combination is silent regarding wherein the interconnecting tool comprises at least one logging tool.
Gibson, drawn to a fishing operation that comprises connecting a cable to a drill pipe in the wellbore, discloses an interconnecting tool that comprises at least one logging tool (connector 13 comprises sensitive magnetic field sensor 21 for detecting the magnetic field strength in the bore hole in three dimensions; pp[0019], [0020]).
Therefore, 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 interconnecting tool of the combination of Denoix and Sherman with the sensor of Gibson because the sensor will allow the orientation of the pipe to be monitored as it is being lowered into the wellbore (pp[0019], Gibson).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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 on (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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights