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 Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of March 26, 2026.
Claims 5-7 and 16 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Raymond fails to disclose using a “switching time interval” as now recited in claims 1, 13, and 20.
Applicant is correct however it is noted that this limitation was rejected as obvious over Wassell and Crowley.
Applicant has argued that Watkins fails to disclose using a “switching time interval” as now recited in claim 13.
Applicant is correct however it is noted that this limitation was rejected as obvious over Wassell and Crowley.
Applicant has argued that neither Wassell nor Crowley teaches switch a dynamic coupler between different coupling modes during drill operations. Applicant argues that Wassell teaches an MR valve assembly with a spring to produce axial forces and Crowley disclose mitigating torsional forces but neither discloses switching between modes to prevent resonance frequency.
Wassell does disclose a dynamic coupling assembly. The assembly includes a torsional bearing assembly 22, a spring 16, and the MR valve assembly 18. This assembly is used to dampen torsional vibrations [0047] and switch modes, or degrees of dampening, based on different dampening requirements as needed and in response to the magnitude and frequence of the drill bit vibrations [0036], [0057]-[0059], [0061]-[0064], [0066], [0067].
While this is not a teaching of switching modes to prevent resonance frequency of the drilling assembly, Crowley was used to show that, in a similar system, it is known to and advantageous to prevent the vibrations in the assembly from reaching resonance frequency Abstract, [0013]-[0017], [0029]. The combination of Wassell and Crowley clearly show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dampening assembly of Raymond or Watkins could be modified to use a switch time interval, like that of Wassell, to prevent or dampen the resonance frequency in a downhole system, as taught by Crowley. The exact nature of the downhole system of Crowley is not germane to the rejection as Crowley solves the same problem as that of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-15, 17, 19-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond et al. (US 7,036,612, Raymond) in view of Wassell et al. (US 2012/0085581, Wassell) and Crowley (US 2024/0084651, Crowley).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 15, 17, and 23: Raymond disclose an active torsional isolator and damper (ATID) Fig 3 for use with a bottom hole assembly (BHA) having a drill bit 5:5, 6, comprising:
a dynamic coupler 30 configured to connect a first portion attached to A (see reproduction of Figure 3D below) of the BHA to a second portion attached to B (see reproduction of Figure 3D below) of the BHA according to different coupling modes 4:34-60, 5:23-38, wherein the dynamic coupler has an inner section A (see reproduction of Figure 3D below) located within an outer housing B (see reproduction of Figure 3D below), the inner section corresponds to the first portion of the BHA Fig 3D, the outer housing corresponds to the second portion of the BHA Fig 3D, and the different coupling modes include at least one coupling mode that restricts torsional movement of the inner section relative to the outer housing 5:23-38; and
a processor 36 configured to control switching of the dynamic coupler between the different coupling modes during a drilling operation of the drill bit 4:34-60, 5:23-38.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)]
PNG
media_image1.png
498
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Raymond discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the processor being configured to use a switching time interval that is less than a resonance time interval for the BHA to achieve a resonance frequency associated with either of the different coupling modes.
Wassell discloses an active torsional isolator and damper similar to that of Raymond. The ATID 10 includes a dynamic coupler 18 that is controlled by a processor 134 – [0051]. The processor is configured to switch between different coupling modes using a switching time interval [0057]-[0059], [0061]-[0064], [0066], [0067], Fig 8a, b that is in response to the magnitude and frequence of the drill bit vibration [0036].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Raymond so that the processor was able to switch between different coupling modes using a switching time interval that was in response to the magnitude and frequency of drill bit vibrations, as taught by Wassell, in order to have been able to control and limit the amount of energy used by the damper [0010], [0057].
Raymond, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except that the switching time interval is less than a resonance time interval for the BHA to achieve a resonance frequency associated with either of the different coupling modes.
Crowley discloses a method and system for mitigating torsional oscillations in a bottom hole assembly Abstract. Crowley discusses the importance of using such a method and system to mitigate the resonance frequency of the downhole assembly [0013]-[0017], [0029].
As such, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Raymond so that the time intervals between switching from one mode to another, like that of Wassell, was less than the time needed to reach the resonance of the BHA in the mode in order to have been able to prevent the BHA from reaching its resonance frequency, as suggested by Crowley, as operating at the resonant frequency would have caused a buildup of energy to levels that were damaging to the BHA [0029].
Regarding claims 2 and 23: Wherein the different coupling modes include a rigid mode and a relaxed mode 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond, wherein a torsional rigidity of the BHA is greater in the rigid mode compared to the relaxed mode as the intended purpose of the different coupling modes is to increase the dampening of the BHA, the rigidity of the BHA would naturally be greater in the rigid mode when the MR fluid is more viscous than in the relaxed mode when the MR fluid is less viscous.
Regarding claim 3: Wherein the processor is configured to operate operates one or more components fluid and coils – 5:5-38 of Raymond of the dynamic coupler in the rigid mode to restrict the torsional movement of the inner section relative to the outer housing.
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the one or more components include one or more electromagnets 42 of Raymond, the dynamic coupler includes a smart fluid 40 – MR fluid – 4:34-60 of Raymond, and the processor is configured to operate one or more electromagnets to increase viscosity of the smart fluid in the rigid mode to restrict the torsional movement of the inner section relative to the outer housing 4:34-60, 5:23-38. of Raymond
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the one or more components includes electromagnets 42 of Raymond operable by the processor, permanent magnets, or a combination thereof that assist in restricting the torsional movement of the inner section relative to the outer housing in the rigid mode 5:5-38 of Raymond.
Regarding claims 9 and 15: Wherein the dynamic coupler includes fluid cavities at 40 – Fig 3C of Raymond defined by the outer housing and the inner section and fluid located in the fluid cavities that couples the inner section to the outer housing, wherein the first portion includes the drill bit 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond.
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the switching time interval is variable [0062] of Wassell.
Regarding claim 11: Wherein the switching time interval is fixed Fig 8a, 8b of Wassell – spacing of time intervals T1-T3 are equal.
Regarding claim 12: Wherein one of the different coupling modes includes a normal mode zero voltage – 4:57-60 of Raymond, wherein the processor does not switch between the different coupling modes in the normal mode.
Regarding claim 13: Raymond, as modified, discloses a bottom hole assembly (BHA) 5:5, 6 of Raymond, comprising:
a drill bit 5:5, 6 of Raymond; and
an active torsional isolator and damper (ATID) Fig 3 of Raymond that connects a first portion attached to A (see reproduction of Figure 3D above) of the BHA to a second portion attached to B (see reproduction of Figure 3D above) of the BHA using a fluid 40 of Raymond according to different coupling modes and changes a resonance frequency of the BHA by switching between the different coupling modes during drilling by the drill bit 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond, wherein the first portion includes the drill bit and the different coupling modes include at least one coupling mode that restricts torsional movement between the first portion relative to the second portion 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond.
Regarding claim 14: Wherein the ATID includes a dynamic coupler 30 of Raymond configured to connect the first and second portions of the BHA 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond, wherein one or more components fluid and coils – 5:5-38 of Raymond of the dynamic coupler are changed when switching between the different coupling modes.
Regarding claim 19: Wherein a duty cycle of the switching time interval varies [0062] of Wassell.
Regarding claim 20: Raymond, as modified, discloses a method of drilling a wellbore using the above described ATID Abstract, 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond, comprising:
operating a drill bit in the wellbore 4:61-5:5 of Raymond, wherein the drill bit is part of a BHA 5:5, 6 of Raymond; and
altering a mass of the BHA during the operating according to different coupling modes of the above described ATID 4:34-60, 5:23-38 of Raymond – degree of application of current to the MR fluid changes the extent to which the first and second portions are coupled together by changing the stiffness of the MR fluid and thus effective mass of the BHA. This is the same means by which the mass of the BHA in the instant application is altered, [0041], [0042].
Claim(s) 13, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2007/0289778, Watkins) in view of Wassell and Crowley.
Regarding claim 13: Watkins discloses a bottom hole assembly (BHA) 53, comprising:
a drill bit 56; and
an active torsional isolator and damper (ATID) 62/540/560/680 that connects a first portion 64, 56/72 of the BHA to a second portion 60, 58/70 of the BHA using a fluid 552/574/690 according to different coupling modes and changes a resonance frequency of the BHA by switching between the different coupling modes during drilling by the drill bit [0065]-[0068], [0080], [0084], wherein the first portion includes the drill bit Fig 1 and the different coupling modes include at least one coupling mode that restricts torsional movement between the first portion relative to the second portion [0065]-[0068], [0080], [0084].
Watkins discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the processor being configured to use a switching time interval that is less than a resonance time interval for the BHA to achieve a resonance frequency associated with either of the different coupling modes.
Wassell discloses an active torsional isolator and damper similar to that of Watkins. The ATID 10 includes a dynamic coupler 18 that is controlled by a processor 134 – [0051]. The processor is configured to switch between different coupling modes using a switching time interval [0057]-[0059], [0061]-[0064], [0066], [0067], Fig 8a, b that is in response to the magnitude and frequence of the drill bit vibration [0036].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watkins so that the processor was able to switch between different coupling modes using a switching time interval that was in response to the magnitude and frequency of drill bit vibrations, as taught by Wassell, in order to have been able to control and limit the amount of energy used by the damper [0010], [0057].
Watkins, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except that the switching time interval is less than a resonance time interval for the BHA to achieve a resonance frequency associated with either of the different coupling modes.
Crowley discloses a method and system for mitigating torsional oscillations in a bottom hole assembly Abstract. Crowley discusses the importance of using such a method and system to mitigate the resonance frequency of the downhole assembly [0013]-[0017], [0029].
As such, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Watkins so that the time intervals between switching from one mode to another, like that of Wassell, was less than the time needed to reach the resonance of the BHA in the mode in order to have been able to prevent the BHA from reaching its resonance frequency, as suggested by Crowley, as operating at the resonant frequency would have caused a buildup of energy to levels that were damaging to the BHA [0029].
Regarding claim 14: Wherein the ATID includes a dynamic coupler 542A, B/566, 568, 570/682, 684, 686 of Watkins configured to connect the first and second portions of the BHA Fig 1 of Watkins, wherein one or more components at least the fluid - [0065]-[0068], [0080], [0084] of Watkins of the dynamic coupler are changed when switching between the different coupling modes.
Regarding claim 17: Wherein the ATID further includes a processor 554/576/693 of Watkins configured to control the switching of the dynamic coupler between the different coupling modes during the drilling by the drill bit [0065]-[0068], [0080], [0084] of Watkins.
Regarding claim 19: Wherein a duty cycle of the switching time interval varies [0062] of Wassell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest an active torsional isolator and damper that switches between different coupling modes according to a switching time intervale, wherein a duty cycle of the switching time interval varies based on a signature of the resonance frequency as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 22: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a method of drilling a wellbore by altering a mass of a BHA between different coupling modes using a switching time interval, wherein the switching time interval is variable based on an indication of resonance in either of the different coupling modes as recited in the claimed combination.
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 JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights