DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Paragraph 38 of Varkey states that the shaped profiles 12 are held together by the outer insulation layer 20. The shaped profiles 12 remain captured and constrained by the outer insulation layer 20. There is no disclosure or suggestion that the shaped profiles 12 of Varkey's cable are free to move relative to one another. Thus, Varkey fails to disclose or suggest a cable in which a plurality of segments comprising an armor layer surrounding a core move relative to one another. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not require an outer insulation layer. Thus, the shaped profiles 12 of Varkey's cable are free to move relative to one another before held together by the outer insulation layer 20 since they are physically independent (i.e., pgh. 38, the shaped profiles 12 are "physically independent." That is, the shaped profiles 12 are separate parts that are not coupled, joined or bonded together, but instead are merely held together by the outer insulation layer 20). Applicant further argues that Varkey also fails to disclose or suggest at least one segment is an electrical forward path comprising non-metallic material. Paragraph 35 of Varkey describes embodiments of shaped profiles 12 and indicates the shaped profiles 12 can be composed of either a conductive metallic material or a polymeric material. Polymeric materials - plastics - are electrically non-conductive. Examiner respectfully disagrees because nowhere in Varkey says the shaped profiles 12 is plastic. And polymeric material can be conductive (www.bing.com/search?q=is%20polymeric%20material%20co%20dcutive%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=is%20polymeric%20material%20co%20dcutive&sc=12-32&sk=&cvid=347041F1F877475E8A81AB686365A801).
All rejections stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A cable for use in a wellbore” in a preamble”. However, nowhere in a body of the claim includes "a wellbore". Thus, it is unclear whether the claimed cable is usable in downhole/wellbore or not since the preamble has not given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Therefore, the claim should include “a wellbore” in the claim body to clarify that the cable is indeed for use in a wellbore.
Claim 1 further recites “each of the plurality of segments” and “at least one segment” that is unclear. Are they same segment or separate segment?
Claims 2-5, 7-19 and 26 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Varkey et al. (20080031578 – Varkey).
Varkey discloses a cable 10A-10J (i.e., figs. 1A-10), comprising:
Re claim 1:
a core 16; and
an armor layer 12 surrounding the core;
wherein the armor layer comprises a plurality of segments 12-12u;
wherein each of the plurality of segments 12 move relative to one another (i.e., pgh. 38, "the shaped profiles 12 (segments) are "physically independent." That is, the shaped profiles 12 are separate parts that are not coupled, joined or bonded together”, but instead are merely held together by the outer insulation layer 20. As the shaped profiles 12 (segments) are separable parts and physically independent, they move relatively to one another before held together by the outer insulation layer).
wherein at least one of segment is an electrical forward path comprising non-metallic material (i.e., pgh, 35, ‘the shaped profiles 12 may be composed of any other appropriate material, such as a polymeric material’ – can be conductive - www.bing.com/search?q=is%20polymeric%20material%20condcutive%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=is%20polymeric%20material%20condcutive%3F&sc=12-33&sk=&cvid=445FB86FC66B4BB5B83033BB4692868B);
Re claim 2, the cable is selected from the group of a slickline, wireline, electrical cable, a non-electrical cable and/or an optical fiber cable 16 (i.e., abstract and pgh. 36, ‘optical fiber’)
Re claim 3, the core 16 comprises at least one conductor and/or at least one optical fiber (i.e., pgh, 36, ‘optical fiber’).
Re claim 4, the core comprises at least one tubular element 14 (i.e., fig. 1A) configured to surround the at least one conductor and/or the at least one optical fiber.
Re claim 5, each of the segments abut the at least one tubular element (i.e., fig. 1A).
Re claim 7, all segments of the armor layer comprise a non-metallic electrically conductive material (i.e., pgh. 35).
Re claim 9, an outer encapsulation tube 20 that comprises an electrical return path (i.e., pgh. 79, ‘the cables may also be useful as permanent monitoring cables for wellbores’- monitoring requires communication that needs an electrical return path).
Re claim 10, the segments 12-12J have a profile or cross section selected from group consisting of keystone, square, circular, rectangular, wedged, round, non-circular or arc shape (i.e., figs 1A, 2A, 3A, 5-10).
Re claim 11, the plurality of segments is arranged or orientated parallel with the longitudinal axis of the cable and/or the core (i.e., figs. 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B).
Re claim 15, at least one of the plurality of segments has at least one reinforcement member 22, 24 (i.e., figs. 2B, 3B).
Re claim 17, the at least one of the reinforcement member 24 is made of an electrically conductive non-metallic material (i.e., pgh. 45).
Re claim 18, the armor layer comprises at least one first segment 12 comprising a first material and/or fibrous composition and at least one second segment 18 comprising a second material and/or fibrous composition (i.e., fig. 1A).
Re claim 19, the plurality of the segments is not bonded to the core (i.e., fig. 1A, 12 is separated by 14, 18 from the core 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 12-14, 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varkey
Re claim 12, Varkey discloses the plurality of segments, but silent on the plurality of segments arranged helically around the core. However, Varkey teaches “In one embodiment, the shaped profiles 12 are "physically independent." That is, the shaped profiles 12 are separate parts that are not coupled, joined or bonded together, but instead are merely held together by the outer insulation layer 20” in pgh. 38. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to arrange the plurality of segments of the Varkey helically around the core for the predicable performance of the cable by operator’s choice when desired, since the helically wound pattern is well known.
Re claim 13, Varkey teaches the armor layer 20, but is silent on the armor layer comprises at least one fiber reinforced composite material. However, Varkey, in pgh. 39, discloses “In one embodiment, the outer insulation layer 20 is composed of a polymer having a reasonably high melting temperature such that it does not melt in the high temperature environments of typical oil and gas wells. For example, the outer insulation layer 20 may be composed of a polymeric material or a hard plastic material, for example polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or another fluoropolymer, for example tefzel.RTM., a perfluoroalkoxy resin (PFA), a fluorinated ethylene propylene copolymer (FEP), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), perfluoromethylvinylether copolymer (MFA), or among other appropriate polymers and/or fluoropolymers’”. And fiber reinforced composite material is a known material. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the cable of Varkey with the armor layer comprising at least one fiber reinforced composite material for predictable performance of the cable, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the in the den use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. This also applies to claims 14, 16 and 26 since they are directed to known materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676