Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, 14 and 21 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Objections
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 4, the claim recites in line “to perform the discovering the rig wireless module”. The word “discovering” must be followed by the word “of” in order to make the sentence grammatically correct. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “to perform the discovering of the rig wireless module”.
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) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229).
In regards to claim 1, Wiese teaches a system comprising a rig wireless module located at a rig surface [fig. 1 elements 32 and 34, par. 0016 L. 1-4]. Also, Wiese teaches that the system comprises a wireless measurement while drilling (MWD) module disposed in an MWD tool located at the rig surface [fig. 1 element Tools 1-N, par. 0003 L. 3-8, par. 0005]. Furthermore, Wiese teaches that the wireless MWD module comprises a transceiver comprising one or more antennas [fig. 1 elements 26 and 28]. It is inherent that the transceiver and one or more antennas must be mounted on a chassis because otherwise, the transceiver and the one or more antennas would be moving around inside the tool thereby causing damage to those components. Wiese also teaches that the wireless MWD module comprises a housing enclosing the transceiver [fig. 1 element Tool 1, par. 0005 L. 1-2]. Wiese further teaches that the housing includes a plurality of windows (slots adjacent to one or more sealing portions included in the housing) [par. 0005 L. 1-2, par. 0015 L. 21-28, par. 0018 L. 8-10]. Also, Wiese teaches that the one or more sealing portions are adjacent to at least a portion of the chassis on which the antennas are mounted [fig. 1 element 28 and 30, par. 0015 L. 21-28]. Furthermore, Wiese teaches that the one or more antennas are configured to provide bidirectional wireless communication with the rig wireless module through the one or more sealing portions and the plurality of slots in the housing [fig. 1, par. 0004, par. 0014 L. 1-4, par. 0015 L. 21-28, par. 0016 L. 1-4, par. 0018 L. 8-10].
Wiese does not teach that a first slot is elongated.
On the other hand, Clark teaches that a housing that permits the receipt and transmission of wireless signals can comprise a plurality of slots, wherein a first slot of the plurality of slots is elongated upon a first directional axis relative to a second directional axis that is perpendicular to the first directional axis [figs. 1, 4B, 6 and 14 element 14, col. 1 L. 10-14, col. 5 L. 24-26, col. 10 L. 50-54, col. 11 L. 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Clark’s teachings of using elongated slots in the system taught by Wiese because it will permit the system to improve the transmission and receipt of wireless signals from/to the MWD tool.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Wiese and Clark, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches the first slot has a first directional orientation that is different from a directional orientation of a second slot [see Clark col. 11 L. 1-3].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Wiese and Clark, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the one or more antennas are disposed on a printed circuit board mounted to the chassis.
On the other hand, Switzer teaches that the transceiver can be implemented as a Bluetooth transceiver comprising a printed circuit board mounted to the chassis on which the antenna is attached/mounted [fig. 7 element 174, col. 8 L. 57-61]. This teaching means that the one or more antennas are disposed on a printed circuit board mounted to the chassis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Switzer’s teachings of attaching the antennas to the PCB of the transceiver in the system taught by Wiese because it will permit to implement all the circuitry of the transceiver with a single PCB.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414) and Bradley et al. (US-12,010,742).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Wiese and Clark, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the wireless MWD module discovers the rig wireless module when the rig wireless module and the wireless MWD module are within a threshold distance from each other.
On the other hand, Switzer teaches that the communication between the wireless MDW module and the rig wireless module can be performed using Bluetooth [col. 5 L. 54-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Switzer’s teachings of using Bluetooth for communications between the MWD module and the rig module in the system taught by Wiese because it will permit the modules to communicate with each other reliably and without using a lot of power.
The combination of Wiese and Switzer teaches that the MWD module and the rig module communicate with each other using Bluetooth. However, the combination does not teach that the wireless MWD module discovers the rig wireless module when the rig wireless module and the wireless MWD module are within a threshold distance from each other.
On the other hand, Bradley teaches that a host device, which communicates via Bluetooth, initiates pairing/discovery with other device that wants to communicate with the host device when the host device determines that the other device is within a threshold distance [col. 4 L. 54-67, col. 5 L. 1-13]. This teaching means that the host device, which in the case of the combination is the wireless MWD module, discovers the other device, which in the case of the combination is the rig wireless module, when the other device and the host device are within a threshold distance from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bradley’s teachings of initiating pairing of the devices only when they are within a threshold distance from each other in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the devices to have reliable and secure communications with each other as a result of only permitting the devices to communicate with each other only when they are near each other.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer and Bradley, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the pairing is performed using Bluetooth protocol [see Switzer col. 5 L. 54-52, see Bradley col. 4 L. 53-58]. This teaching means that a communication protocol is used to perform the discovering of the rig wireless module.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Wiese and Clark, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the wireless MWD module pairs with the rig wireless module to enable the wireless bidirectional communication with the rig wireless module.
On the other hand, Switzer teaches that the communication between the wireless MDW module and the rig wireless module can be performed using Bluetooth [col. 5 L. 54-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Switzer’s teachings of using Bluetooth for communications between the MWD module and the rig module in the system taught by Wiese because it will permit the modules to communicate with each other reliably and without using a lot of power.
The combination of Wiese and Switzer teaches that the MWD module and the rig module communicate with each other using Bluetooth. However, the combination does not teach that the modules are paired with each other before performing communication.
On the other hand, Bradley teaches that devices communicating using Bluetooth protocol are paired with each other before initiating communications [col. 4 L. 54-67, col. 5 L. 1-13]. This teaching means the devices using Bluetooth protocol pair with each other to enable the wireless bidirectional communication with each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bradley’s teachings of pairing the devices before initiating communication in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the modules to communicate with each other is a secure and reliable manner.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer and Bradley, as shown in the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer and Bradley, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches further teaches that the housing comprises a plurality of slots including a first slot that has a first physical layout that is different from a second physical layout of a second slot [see Clark col. 10 L. 66-67, col. 11 L. 1-3].
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer and Bradley, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, further teaches that the certain communication protocol comprises a 2.4 Gigahertz communication protocol [see Switzer col. 5 L. 54-57, col. 8 L. 46-49].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229), Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414) and Bradley et al. (US-12,010,742) as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Murphree et al. (US-10,041,347).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Wiese, Clark Switzer and Bradley, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, further teaches that the transceiver receiving data from the MWD tool disposed in the collar can transmit the data to the rig wireless module in a wireless manner [see Wiese fig. 1 element 34, par. 0016 L. 1-4, see Switzer col. 7 L. 54-56]. This teaching means that the method comprises transmitting, via the one or more radios of the wireless MWD module, another wireless signal to a repeater disposed near a drill collar in which the MWD tool is disposed in.
However, the combination does not teach that the repeater is disposed at a top of a drill collar.
On the other hand, Murphree teaches that a repeater configured to relay data from a wireless tool can be located above (at a top) of the collar [col. 14 L. 45-47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Murphee’s teachings of placing the repeater above the collar in the method taught by the combination because that place will permit the repeater to receive and transmit data reliably from/to the MWD module to/from rig module.
Claim(s) 10, 14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229), Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414), Bradley et al. (US-12,010,742) and Murphree et al. (US-10,041,347) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Zafar et al. (US-12,069,770).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley and Murphree, as applied in the rejection of claim 9 above, further teaches that the transceiver receiving data from the MWD tool can transmit the data to the rig wireless module in a wireless manner [see Wiese fig. 1 element 34, par. 0016 L. 1-4]. This teaching means that the system comprises a repeater. However, the combination does not teach that the repeater comprises a first antenna configured to receive the another wireless signal and a second antenna configured to transmit the another wireless signal to the rig wireless module.
On the other hand, Zafar teaches that a repeater can comprise a first antenna configured to receive the another wireless signal and a second antenna configured to transmit the other wireless signal to a desired receiver [fig. 1 elements 550, 553 and 554, col. 32 L. 20-26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Zafar’s teachings of a repeater having two antennas in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the repeater to receive and transmit data at the same time.
In regards to claims 14, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as shown in the rejections of claims 7, 9 and 10 above, teaches a method performing the functions of the claimed system comprising the claimed components. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the first antenna is positioned towards a direction of a first device while the second antenna is positioned towards the direction of the other device away from the first antenna [see Zafar fig. 5B elements 553 and 554]. This teaching means that the first antenna is positioned away from an outside of the drill collar where the tool is located to transmit the wireless signals to the rig wireless module and to receive the wireless signals from the rig wireless module, and the second antenna is positioned toward an inside of the drill collar to transmit the wireless signals to the wireless MWD module and to receive the wireless signals from the wireless MWD module. The combination also teaches that the module is configured to transmit and received the wireless signals via the plurality of sealed slots [see Clark figs. 1, 4B, 6 and 14 element 14, col. 1 L. 10-14, col. 5 L. 24-26, col. 10 L. 50-54, col. 11 L. 1-3]. This teaching also means that the second antenna transmits and receives the wireless signals to/from the module via the plurality of sealed slots.
In regards to claims 16, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, further teaches that a host device, which communicates via Bluetooth, initiates pairing/discovery with other device that wants to communicate with the host device when the host device determines that the other device is within a threshold distance [see Bradley col. 4 L. 54-67, col. 5 L. 1-13]. This teaching means that the host device, which in the case of the combination is the wireless MWD module, and the other device, which in the case of the combination is the rig wireless module, discover each other when within a threshold distance from each other.
In regards to claims 17, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, further teaches that a host device, which communicates via Bluetooth, initiates pairing/discovery with other device that wants to communicate with the host device when the host device determines that the other device is within a threshold distance [see Bradley col. 4 L. 54-67, col. 5 L. 1-13]. This teaching means that the wireless MWD module and the rig wireless module are configured to pair with each other after discovery.
In regards to claims 18, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, further teaches that Bluetooth protocol having a frequency of 2.4GHz is used during the discovery [see Switzer col. 5 L. 54-57, col. 8 L. 46-49, see Bradley col. 4 L. 54-67, col. 5 L. 1-13].
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, further teaches that at least portion of the plurality of slots are arranged in a particular pattern [see Clark fig. 1 element 14, col. 10 L. 66-67].
In regards to claims 20, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as shown in the rejections of claims 16-17 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claims 21, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as shown in the rejections of claim 14 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the method.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229), Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414) and Bradley et al. (US-12,010,742) as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Samuel (US-10,385,675).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer and Bradley, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, does not teach that the MWD tool is located outside of a drill collar.
On the other hand, Samuel teaches that the MWD tool can be located outside the drill collar [fig. 1 elements 145 (drill collar) and 150 (MWD tool), col. 2 L. 53-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Samuel’s teachings of placing the MWD tool outside the collar in the method taught by the combination because that location will permit the system to measure drilling and wellbore parameters accurately.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229), Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414), Bradley et al. (US-12,010,742) and Murphree et al. (US-10,041,347) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Harbison et al. (US-12,416,207).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley and Murphree, as applied in the rejection of claim 9 above, further teaches the repeater configured to relay data from a wireless tool can be located above (at a top) of the collar [see Murphree col. 14 L. 45-47]. However, the combination does not teach that the repeater is secured to the top of the drill collar via a mechanical clamp mechanism.
On the other hand, Harbison teaches that mechanical clamps can be used to attach devices to a desired location [col. 1 L. 53-56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Harbison’s teachings of using a mechanical clamp to attach devices in the method taught by the combination because a mechanical clamp provides easy and reliable means to attach the repeater.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese et al. (US-2008/0001775) in view of Clark et al. (US-6,614,229), Switzer et al. (US-9,976,414), Bradley et al. (US-12,010,742), Murphree et al. (US-10,041,347) and Zafar et al. (US-12,069,770) as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Harbison et al. (US-12,416,207).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Wiese, Clark, Switzer, Bradley, Murphree and Zafar, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, further teaches the repeater configured to relay data from a wireless tool can be located above (at a top) of the collar [see Murphree col. 14 L. 45-47]. However, the combination does not teach that the repeater is secured to the top of the drill collar via a mechanical clamp mechanism.
On the other hand, Harbison teaches that mechanical clamps can be used to attach devices to a desired location [col. 1 L. 53-56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Harbison’s teachings of using a mechanical clamp to attach devices in the method taught by the combination because a mechanical clamp provides easy and reliable means to attach the repeater.
Conclusion
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688