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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusson et al. (7166802) in view of Holzmueller et al. (9336929).
Cusson et al. discloses a system comprising a tubing (350); a tubing encapsulated conductor comprising at least one interior wire (305); a conductive ground wire (310); and an encapsulation layer (330) comprising a polymer and positioned to encoat the ground wire (re-claims 1 and 8).
Cusson et al. does not disclose the tubing encapsulated conductor comprising a metal sheath positioned around the at least one interior wire (re-claims 1 and 8).
Holzmueller et al. discloses a system comprising a tubing encapsulated conductor (Fig. 5) which includes a metal sheath (550) positioned around an interior wire (510).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before extruding layer 330, to provide a metal sheath as taught by Holzmueller et al. around the at least one interior wire of Cusson et al. to further protect the interior wire.
It is noted that since the modified system of Cusson comprises structure and material as claimed, the tubing (350) is positionable in a wellbore; at least a portion of the tubing encapsulated conductor is positionable downhole in the wellbore; the interior wire is positionable to transmit electric power from a power source associated with the wellbore to at least one piece of electrical equipment, positionable downhole in the wellbore, during a tubing deployment operation performed with respect to the wellbore; the metal sheath is positionable to provide a pressure barrier around the interior wire and to provide a ground-side electrical connection beween the power source and the electrical equipment; the conductive ground is in electrical contact with at least a portion of the metal sheath to reduce a resistance of the ground-side electrical connection; and the encapsulation layer is positionable to facilitate one or more electrical coupling between the metal sheath and the conductive ground wire (re-claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 13).
Re-claims 3 and 11, Cusson et al., as modified, discloses the encapsulation layer (330) is positionable to maintain the metal sheath (of Holzmueller) in contact with the conductive ground wire (310, Fig. 3A) at a plurality of locations along the length of the metal sheath.
Re-claims 4 and 12, Cusson et al. discloses the tubing encapsulated conductor further comprising at least one insulated tubing (320) positionable around the interior wire to provide electrical and mechanical isolation for the interior wire.
Re-claim 5, Cusson et al., as modified, discloses the tubing encapsulated conductor further comprising a filling material (320) positionable between the interior wire and the metal sheath to maintain the position of the interior wire within the tubing encapsulated conductor.
Re-claims 7 and 14, Cusson et al., as modified, discloses the encapsulation layer (330) being extrudable on the metal sheath and the conductive ground wire to maintain the electrical coupling between the metal sheath and the ground wire.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusson et al. in view of Holzmueller et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nadakal et al. (10796822).
Claims 2 and 10 additionally recite the ground wire comprising a copper wire having a 14 gauge to 20 gauge thickness. Nadakal et al. discloses a system comprising ground (drain) wire (22) comprising a copper wire having a 14 gauge to 20 gauge thickness (col. 2, line 48). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a ground wire as taught by Nadakal et al. for the ground wire of Cusson et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting system.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesgaard (2020/0115964) in view of Cusson et al. and Holzmueller et al.
Nesgaard discloses a method comprising electrically coupling an encapsulated conductor (cable 10) between a power source ([0036]) associated with a wellbore and at least one piece of electrical equipment (50) used downhole within the wellbore during a wellbore operation performed with respect to the wellbore; and controlling (control 200) a supply of power to the at least one piece of electrical equipment during the wellbore operation via the encapsulated conductor, wherein current is transmitted from the power source to the at least one piece of electrical equipment via at least one interior wire of the encapsulated conductor (re-claim 15).
Nesgaard does not disclose the encapsulated conductor being a tubing encapsulated conductor comprising at least one interior wire; a metal sheath; and a conductive ground wire positioned between an encapsulation polymer layer and the metal sheath (re-claim 15).
Cusson et al. and Holzmueller et al. disclose the encapsulated conductor as claimed, see the above rejection with respect to claims 1 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the encapsulated conductor (cable 10) of Nesgaard with the tubing encapsulated conductor, taught by Cusson et al. and Holzmueller et al. (modified cable 300 of Cusson), since such encapsulated conductor has improved physical properties, light weight and impact resistance. It is noted that in the modified method of Nesgaard, the current returns to the power source via the metal sheath of the tubing encapsulated conductor.
Re-claim 16, Nesgaard, as modified, discloses the metal sheath comprising aluminum (see Holzmueller, col. 8 line 15).
Re-claim 18, Nesgaard, as modified, discloses the tubing encapsulated conductor further comprising at least one insulated tubing (320 of Cusson) positionable around the at least one interior wire to provide electrical and mechanical isolation for the at least one interior wire.
Re-claim 19, Nesgaard, as modified, discloses the tubing encapsulated conductor further comprising a filling material (320) positionable between the interior wire and the metal sheath to maintain the position of the interior wire within the tubing encapsulated conductor.
Re-claim 20, Nesgaard discloses the wellbore operation being a tubing deployment operation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesgaard in view of Cusson et al. and Holzmueller et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Nadakal et al.
Claim 17 additionally recites the ground wire comprising a copper wire having a 14 gauge to 20 gauge thickness. Nadakal et al. discloses a system comprising ground (drain) wire (22) comprising a copper wire having a 14 gauge to 20 gauge thickness (col. 2, line 48). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a ground wire as taught by Nadakal et al. for the ground wire (of Cusson et al.) in the modified method of Nesgaard to meet the specific use of the resulting system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 15, and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that “Holzmueller's metallic shield 550 is electrically insulated on its inner side by insulation 530 and an insulation shield, and on its outer side by a barrier layer 560 and cable jacket 570. The metallic shield 550 plainly fails to teach or suggest a metal sheath in electrical contact with a ground wire.” Examiner would disagree. First, the metallic shield 550 of Holzmueller is NOT electrically insulated on its inner side. Inner side of metallic shield 550 is in direct contact with insulation shield 540 which is a semiconductive layer. Second, the rejection is a 103 rejection, where the combination of Cusson and Holzmueller teaches a metal sheath in electrical contact with a ground wire. If Holzmuller were disclosed a ground wire in electrical contact with metal sheath 550, it would be a 102 rejection.
Applicant argues that to meet the claimed invention, the Office Action (OA) must reconstruct a new cable arrangement, and such reconstruction would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Examiner would disagree because there is no new cable arrangement. The OA, instead, proposes that before extruding layer 330 in Cusson, one skilled in the art would add a metal sheath, 550 adjacent to outer semiconductive layer 540, as taught by Holzmueller to further protect the interior wire.
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion or motivation to retrofit Cusson with Holzmueller’s metallic shield 550 because:
(1) Holzmueller's metallic shield is not a ground path, as required by the claims;
(2) Cusson already teaches a metallic armor fulfilling the same pressure barrier purposes as the metal sheath in a separate location; and
(3) Placing Holzmueller's metallic shield internal and adjacent to the ground wire 310 would block the inner jacket 330, preventing jacket deformability.
Examiner would disagree:
Holzmueller does teach metallic shield 550 to serve as a ground plane (col. 8 lines 12-13).
Applicant states that Cusson already teaches a metallic armor fulfilling the pressure barrier purpose as the metal sheath in a sepration location, pointing to col. 5 lines 20-23 and col. 8 lines 36-41. However, neither of the two phrases disclose the pressure barrier function as argued by the applicant.
Placing Holzmueller’s metallic shield 550 adjacent to outer semiconductive layer 325 of Cusson before extruding layer 330 will NOT prevent the defomability of layer 330. The modification in the OA, metallic shield 550 of Holzmueller is placed inside layer 330, and layer 330 is extruded to bind the conductors (col. 5 lines 14-15). Adding metallic shield 550 of Holzmueller will NOT prevent the deformability of layer 330.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights