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; 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 and the ground wire being in electrical communication with one another to provide a ground path to the power source.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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