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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 07/01/2025. Claims 1—31 are currently pending. Claims 7—14 and 23—31 are withdrawn from consideration.
Restriction Requirement
A Requirement for Restriction was issued 05/27/2025. Group I, directed to claims 1—6 and 15—22 were elected for examination in the Response dated 07/01/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 01/18/2025 and 08/06/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a gripper section having an external wall, an engagement mechanism having one or more gripper feet” and “a sleeve having a complementary engagement track… wherein the complementary engagement track engages with the engagement mechanism when the gripper is in the first extended position.” The manner in which the limitations are presented obfuscates the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purposes of the rejection “a gripper section,” is understood to refer to gripper apparatus/section 1112 (e.g., see para. [0154]). Due to the way in which the claim is presented, the “engagement mechanism” would appear to be part of the gripper section; however, there are not any limitations in the claim which show a relationship between the gripper section and the engagement mechanism. As claimed, the engagement mechanism is described as engaging with an engagement track of the sleeve. Based on the disclosure, these elements (e.g., engagement mechanism, engagement track, and sleeve) are understood to be part of the threaded drive section 1104 as presented in FIG. 11. Notably there is no overlap depicted in the figures between the gripper section 1112 and the threaded drive section 1104. As such, the engagement mechanism having one or more feet is understood to be part of the threaded drive section. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 15—22 are presented below in view of this observation about claim 15.
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—6 and 15—22 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected as being indefinite for reciting the limitation “a sleeve…having a second linearly extended orientation.” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “linearly extended” in claims 1 and 15 is used by the claim to mean “linearly translated,” while the accepted meaning is closer to “expanded in a linear direction.” For example, the word extend is defined as “to make longer or wider,” as such the sleeve would need to be deformed/stretched in order to meet the definition of “extend.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With continued regard for claims 1 and 15, the element of “a second retracted orientation,” in the limitation “a first extended orientation and a second retracted orientation,” does not have antecedent basis. For example, in order for the claim to properly include a limitation directed to “a second retracted orientation,” it would need to recite “a first retracted orientation.” Moreover, the limitation “a second retracted orientation,” is not equivalent to the limitation “a second orientation comprising a retracted orientation.” For the purpose of examination, the claims are understood to recite “a gripper apparatus… having an extended orientation and a retracted orientation…”.
With continued regard for claims 1 and 15, the element “a second linearly extended orientation,” in the limitation “a [cylindrical] sleeve having… a first orientation, and a second linearly extended orientation,” does not have antecedent basis for similar reasons as provided directly above. For example, in order for the claims to properly include a limitation directed to “a second linearly extended orientation,” it would need to recite “a first linearly extended orientation.” Moreover, the limitation “a second linearly extended orientation,” is not equivalent to the limitation “a second orientation wherein the cylindrical sleeve is laterally translated from a first position associated with the first orientation to a second position associated with the second orientation.” For the purpose of examination, the claims are understood to recite a sleeve capable of lateral translation.
Regarding claim 15, the element “the gripper,” in the limitation “wherein the complementary engagement track engages with the engagement mechanism when the gripper is in the first extended position,” does not have antecedent basis in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation is understood to recite “wherein the complementary engagement track engages with the engagement mechanism when the gripper section is in the extended position.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the engagement mechanism comprises one or more ball bearings.” Claim 16 depends from claim 15 which recites “an engagement mechanism having one or more gripper feet.” It is unclear how the engagement mechanism can have both gripper feet and ball bearings. The disclosure provides embodiments which depict each of these features (e.g., gripper feet and ball bearings) separately; however, there is nothing in the application which provides a figure or description of these two embodiments in combination. As such, it is unclear how this would be achieved. Examiner notes that while claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness due to lack of clarity (e.g., it is unclear what is attempted to be claimed) it could alternatively be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being directed to an embodiment which is not enabled by the specification or depicted in the figures.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the gripper section is disposed within the inner casing,”; however, as depicted in FIG. 11, gripper section of gripper apparatus 1112 is disposed on the external surface of the tool. As such, it is unclear how the gripper section can be both disposed within an inner casing of the tool and also capable of engaging with a wellbore casing (e.g., a feature that the gripper section 1112 is described as performing). Moreover claims 19—21 depend from claim 18 where each of the claims includes limitations which are not combinable as part of the gripper section (e.g., gripper section 1112 as depicted in FIG. 11) and appear to be more so directed to the threaded drive section 1104. It is unclear what is attempted to be claimed between the combination of claims 15 and 18—21. Similar to claim 16, while claims 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite due to lack of clarity (e.g., it is unclear what is attempted to be claimed), the claims could alternatively be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being directed to an embodiment which is not enabled by the specification or depicted in the figures.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons detailed above. Claims 2—6 depend from claim 1; claims 16—22 depend from claim 15; and claims 19—21 depend from claim 18. As such, claims 2—6 and 16—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1—6 and 15—16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent to Adams et al., hereinafter “Adams” (US 20240328268 A1) in view of Published US Patent to Krueger (US 9045946 B2). Examiner notes Adams constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for having an earlier filing date that the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a drilling tool having a proximal end and a distal end (traction tool 100 see FIGs. 16A—16D); a gripper apparatus affixed to an exterior surface of a portion of the drilling tool (anchor 200 including slip system 210), the gripper apparatus having a first extended orientation and a second retracted orientation (para. [0088], “[t]he anchor 200 includes a slip system 210 and an anchor piston 220. Hydraulic activation of the anchor piston 220 as discussed below actuates the slip system 210 to engage against the wellbore sidewall 13.” See FIG. 12B for the retracted configuration compared to FIG. 14B which depicts an extended configuration), wherein in the extended orientation an outer diameter of a gripper apparatus comprises an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of an external wall of the drilling tool (see the anchor 200 in the extended configuration as depicted in FIG. 14B) and the retracted orientation comprises an outer diameter of the gripper apparatus of less than the outer diameter of the external wall (see FIG. 12B where the components of anchor 200 are retracted into a recess formed in the outer portion of the tool. In the retracted configuration as seen in FIG. 12B, the figure shows the anchors recessed to a smaller diameter than the adjacent hatch-marked portions of the tool).
While Adams discloses one or more rams 240 which are used in a similar manner as a linear actuator (e.g., to extend and retract a drill bit -- see para. [0102] of Adams), the disclosure may not explicitly recite the limitations an internal threaded section proximal the distal end of the drilling tool and a cylindrical sleeve having external threads extending from at least a portion of an outer surface of the cylindrical sleeve, the cylindrical sleeve having a first orientation, and a second linearly extended orientation wherein the external threads engage with the internal threaded section. However, Krueger, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a drilling tool assembly including a gripper apparatus (e.g., grippers 214) and a linear actuator (actuation device 308) which extends and retracts a drill bit to drill a borehole, teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Krueger teaches a cylindrical sleeve having external threads extending from at least a portion of an outer surface of the cylindrical sleeve (Thruster 312 of actuation device 308, Krueger, para. [0018], “[a]n actuation device 308 is located within a portion of the tubular 302 (or “liner”) to selectively extend and retract a drilling assembly 310 from an end of the tubular 302. The actuation device 308 includes a thruster 312 and tractors 314. As depicted, the thruster 312 is a mechanical, electronic, electromechanical or hydraulic linear actuator, such as a hydraulic cylinder or ball screw mechanism described above.), the cylindrical sleeve having a first orientation, and a second linearly extended orientation (see above citation; see also all of para. [0018]) wherein the external threads engage with the internal threaded section (examiner notes that a ball screw fulfills the requirements for the internal and external threaded portions as recited by the claims and therefore also reads on the limitation “an internal threaded section proximal the distal end of the drilling tool.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced, by simple substitution, the linear actuator of Adams (e.g., rams 240) with the actuation device 308 as taught by Krueger. The functions of both the actuator of Adams and Krueger are both 1.) known and 2.) utilized to perform the same function on a substantially similar tool. The substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing for a linear actuation mechanism to extend the drill bit to drill a borehole.
Regarding claim 2, Adams modified by Krueger teaches wherein the gripper apparatus (anchor 200 of Adams) comprises a plurality of gripper pads (slip elements 214) configured to engage with an interior surface of a borehole (para. [0093], “[t]he slip elements 214 are thereby wedged between the extension ramps 238 and the flaps 230 to engage toward the wellbore sidewall 13.”).
Regarding claim 3, Adams modified by Krueger teaches wherein the plurality of gripper pads comprise a plurality of teeth configured to engage with an interior surface of a borehole (slip elements such as those included in an anchor apparatus of Adams are understood to include teeth where FIG. 13B, for example, depicts ridges/teeth on the outer surface of slip elements 214).
Regarding claim 4, Adams modified by Krueger teaches a drill bit (Adams, operational tool 40, para. [0053], “[t]he bottom hole assembly 30 can include one or more operational tools 40, such as a milling tool or the like.”) attached to the cylindrical sleeve (the milling tool 40 of Adams is attached to ram 240 of Adams, where rams 240 are equivalent to the substituted portion of Krueger which includes the cylindrical sleeve as described with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Adams modified by Krueger teaches wherein the gripper apparatus extends outwardly away from a longitudinal axis of the drilling tool from the retracted orientation to the extended orientation when an internal pressure of the gripper apparatus is increased (Adams, para. [0088], “[t]he anchor 200 includes a slip system 210 and an anchor piston 220. Hydraulic activation of the anchor piston 220 as discussed below actuates the slip system 210 to engage against the wellbore sidewall 13.”; para. [0090], “as shown in FIG. 14B in response to a second level of hydraulic pressure overcoming a second bias (e.g., bias of spring 226) of the anchor 200, where the second level is greater than the first level.).
Regarding claim 6, Adams modified by Krueger teaches wherein the gripper apparatus retracts inwardly towards a longitudinal axis of the drilling tool from the extended orientation to the retracted orientation when an internal pressure of the gripper apparatus is decreased (Adams, para. [0106], “[r]eduction of the fluid flow allows the traction tool 100 to reset with the ram 240 and the anchor 210 retracting.”)
Regarding claim 15, Adams discloses a drilling tool having a proximal end and a distal end (traction tool 100 see FIGs. 16A—16D); a gripper section having an external wall (anchor 200 including slip system 210), a first extended orientation and a second retracted orientation (para. [0088], “[t]he anchor 200 includes a slip system 210 and an anchor piston 220. Hydraulic activation of the anchor piston 220 as discussed below actuates the slip system 210 to engage against the wellbore sidewall 13.” See FIG. 12B for the retracted configuration compared to FIG. 14B which depicts an extended configuration), wherein in the extended orientation an outer diameter of the gripper section comprises an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the external wall of the drilling tool (see the anchor 200 in the extended configuration as depicted in FIG. 14B) and the retracted orientation comprises an outer diameter of the gripper section of less than the outer diameter of the external wall (see FIG. 12B where the components of anchor 200 are retracted into a recess formed in the outer portion of the tool. In the retracted configuration as seen in FIG. 12B, the figure shows the anchors recessed to a smaller diameter than the adjacent hatch-marked portions of the tool).
While Adams discloses one or more rams 240 which are used in a similar manner as a linear actuator (e.g., to extend and retract a drill bit -- see para. [0102] of Adams). Adams further discloses [[the engagement mechanism when the gripper is in the first extended orientation.]]. However, the disclosure of Adams may not explicitly recite the limitations an engagement mechanism having one or more gripper feet and a sleeve having a complementary engagement track extending from at least a portion of an outer surface of the sleeve, the sleeve having a first orientation, and a second linearly extended orientation wherein the complementary engagement track engages with the engagement mechanism when the gripper is in the first extended orientation. Krueger, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a drilling tool assembly including a gripper apparatus (e.g., grippers 214) and a linear actuator (actuation device 308) which extends and retracts a drill bit to drill a borehole, teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Krueger teaches a sleeve (tubing 315, see FIG. 3) having a complementary engagement track (tractors 314, see FIG. 3) extending from at least a portion of an outer surface of the sleeve (see FIG. 3), the sleeve having a first orientation, and a second linearly extended orientation wherein the complementary engagement track engages with the engagement mechanism when the gripper is in the first extended orientation (para. [0018], “the tractors 314 are mechanisms that utilize rotating radial members which grip or contact the inner walls (or “chamber walls”) of the tubular 302 and therefore guide and axially convey tubing 315 (or “tubular”, “drill string portion” or “drilling assembly tubular”) in and out of the tubular 302.”).
Krueger further teaches an engagement mechanism having one or more gripper feet (“rotating radial members,” of para. [0018], “[i]n one aspect, the tractors 314 are mechanisms that utilize rotating radial members which grip or contact the inner walls (or “chamber walls”) of the tubular 302 and therefore guide and axially convey tubing 315 (or “tubular”, “drill string portion” or “drilling assembly tubular”) in and out of the tubular 302.”; para. [0018], “[i]t should be noted that one or more thrusters 312 and/or tractors 314 may be used to control the position of and actuate the axial movement of the drilling assembly 310. Further, additional components, such as grippers, may also be included to facilitate operation of actuation device 308.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced, by simple substitution, the linear actuator of Adams (e.g., rams 240) with the actuation device 308 as taught by Krueger. The functions of both the actuator of Adams and Krueger are both 1.) known and 2.) utilized to perform the same function on a substantially similar tool. The substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing for a linear actuation mechanism to extend the drill bit to drill a borehole.
Regarding claim 16, Adams modified by Krueger teaches wherein the engagement mechanism (actuation device 308 of Krueger including the thruster 312 and tractor 314) comprises one or more ball bearings, and the engagement track comprises one or more ball returns (Krueger, para. [0018], “[a]n actuation device 308 is located within a portion of the tubular 302 (or “liner”) to selectively extend and retract a drilling assembly 310 from an end of the tubular 302. The actuation device 308 includes a thruster 312 and tractors 314. As depicted, the thruster 312 is a mechanical, electronic, electromechanical or hydraulic linear actuator, such as a hydraulic cylinder or ball screw mechanism described above.).
Claim(s) 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent to Adams et al., hereinafter “Adams” (US 20240328268 A1) in view of Published US Patent to Krueger (US 9045946 B2) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Wai et al., hereinafter “Wai,” (US 20250075779 A1).
Regarding claim 17, while Adams modified by Krueger teach “rotating radial members,” (para. [0018], “[i]n one aspect, the tractors 314 are mechanisms that utilize rotating radial members which grip or contact the inner walls (or “chamber walls”) of the tubular 302 and therefore guide and axially convey tubing 315 (or “tubular”, “drill string portion” or “drilling assembly tubular”) in and out of the tubular 302.”), they may not explicitly recite the limitation wherein the engagement mechanism comprises one or more locking pins, and the engagement track comprises one or more recesses.
However, Wai, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as Wai is directed to an apparatus used to extend a drilling tubular in a well, teaches the deficient limitation. Wai provides for a more detailed version of the rotation radial members of Krueger as depicted in FIG. 2A of Wai. The tractor 30 includes a drive arm 60 where gears 68 are engaged with each other where each gear includes engagement recesses and wherein the gears are attached to drive arm 60 by pins which lock them in place. Notably, Wai provides a more detailed embodiment of a rotating radial member used on a tractor such that it would be obvious to replace the generic rotating radial members of Krueger with the rotating radial members provided in FIG. 2A of Wai to achieve the predictable result of providing for rotating radial member usable with a tractor.
Regarding claim 22, while Adams modified by Krueger teach “rotating radial members,” (para. [0018], “[i]n one aspect, the tractors 314 are mechanisms that utilize rotating radial members which grip or contact the inner walls (or “chamber walls”) of the tubular 302 and therefore guide and axially convey tubing 315 (or “tubular”, “drill string portion” or “drilling assembly tubular”) in and out of the tubular 302.”), they may not explicitly recite the limitation wherein the engagement mechanism comprises a first arm in contact with an engagement section, and a second arm in contact with the one or more gripper feet.
However, Wai, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as Wai is directed to an apparatus used to extend a drilling tubular in a well, teaches the deficient limitation. Wai provides for a more detailed version of the rotation radial members of Krueger as depicted in FIG. 2A of Wai. The tractor 30 includes a drive arm 60 where gears 68 are engaged with each other where each gear includes engagement recesses and wherein the gears are attached to drive arm 60 by pins which lock them in place. As such, Wai teaches wherein the engagement mechanism (wheel 70 which is attached to drive arm 60 with gears 68) comprises a first arm in contact with an engagement section (the drive arm 60 on which the gears are attached), and a second arm in contact with the one or more gripper feet (adjacent gears 68 constitute second arms which are engaged with each other and engage wheel 70 as depicted in FIGs. 2A and 4A).
Notably, Wai provides a more detailed embodiment of a rotating radial member used on a tractor such that it would be obvious to replace the generic rotating radial members of Krueger with the rotating radial members provided in FIG. 2A of Wai to achieve the predictable result of providing for rotating radial member usable with a tractor.
Claims without a Prior Art Rejection
Claims 18—21 do not have prior art cited against them and are therefore technically allowed over the art. However, the claims are subject to multiple rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the metes and bounds of what is being recited in the claims is unclear. Furthermore, the limitations appear to combine elements of the gripper section 1112 and the threaded drive section 1104 in a manner which is not enabled by the specification or depicted in the figures. While a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) was not used in preference for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and unamended combination of the limitations of claims 15 and 18—21 could warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Published US Patent to Volker Krueger (US 6516898 B1) is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application and includes similar mechanical elements which are configured in a substantially similar manner as the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/ULN/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676