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 Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on 07/01/2025. Claims 1—6, 15—21, and 32—45 are currently pending. Claims 15—20 and 35—44 are withdrawn from consideration.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. A second Restriction Requirement directed to a Species election was issued 02/24/2026. The elected species are represented in claims 1—6, 21, 32—34, and 45.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 01/18/2025 and 08/06/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 recites the claim element “the one or more gripper feet,” which does not have antecedent basis in the claim and should likely instead recite “[[the]] one or more gripper feet.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 21, and 32—33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Adams et al., hereinafter “Adams” (US 20240328268 A1) in view of Published US Patent Application to Krueger (US 20120073876 A1).
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 (anchor 200 including slip system 210) affixed to a recessed portion of an exterior surface of the drilling tool (see FIG. 13B which depicts anchor 200 nested in a recessed portion generated by extension ramps 238 of the tool), the gripper apparatus having an extended orientation and a 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 at least a portion 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 (Adams, slip elements 214) configured to engage with an interior surface of a borehole (Adams, 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 (Adams, 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 (Adams, 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 21, Adams modified by Krueger teaches wherein the external wall comprises one or more shoulder regions (Adams, see FIG. 13B which depicts slip elements 214 and slip system 210 of anchor 200 nested in a recessed portion generated by extension ramps 238 of the tool), wherein the one or more gripper feet (Adams, slip elements 214) are seated within the one or more shoulder regions in a retracted orientation (Adams, see configuration of anchor 200 relative to extensions ramps 238 of FIG. 13B).
Regarding claim 32, Adams modified by Krueger teaches an inner bearing section inside a portion of the cylindrical sleeve (Krueger, para. [0018], “[a]s depicted, the thruster 312 is a mechanical, electronic, electromechanical or hydraulic linear actuator, such as a hydraulic cylinder or ball screw mechanism described above.”).
Regarding claim 33, Adams modified by Krueger teaches an outer bearing section inside a portion of the drilling tool between an inside surface of the drilling tool and an outside surface of the cylindrical sleeve (Krueger, para. [0018], “[a]s 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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Adams et al., hereinafter “Adams” (US 20240328268 A1) in view of Published US Patent Application to Krueger (US 20120073876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Tunget (US 20110000668 A1).
Adams modified by Krueger may not teach the limitations of claim 34; however, Tunget, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a downhole drilling system, teaches a downhole drilling tool coupled to a kelly. For example, Tunget teaches “wherein said downhole motor is coupled to a kelly coupling which allows axial movement of said cutting assembly during a cutting operation.” (Tunget, claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the kelly of Tunget to the tool of Adams as modified by Krueger according to known methods (e.g., all three systems are drilling systems with drilling tubulars and downhole tools) in order to achieve the predictable result of a coupling which allows for axial movement of the cutting assembly.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Adams et al., hereinafter “Adams” (US 20240328268 A1) in view of Published US Patent Application to Krueger (US 20120073876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Leslie et al., hereinafter “Leslie” (US 20060066102 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Adams modified by Krueger teach a drilling tool which is coupled to a drill string (tubing string 20 of Adams, see FIG. 1); however, Adams modified by Krueger may not teach wherein at least a portion of the drill string comprises one or more pipes comprising a composite material. Leslie, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to drilling equipment, teaches the deficient limitation of composite drill pipe. For example, Leslie teaches “the inventive pipe assembly, generally designated by the numeral 10, comprises a tubular composite pipe segment 11, formed by laying up reinforcing fiber, such as carbon fiber, preferably laid in stress determined orientation patterns between plies of interleaved wrapping of generally impervious elastic sheets, all bonded together by resinous filler to form a cylindrical structure of a generally uniform wall thickness over most of its length.” (Leslie, para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted at least a portion of the tubing string of Adams (e.g., as modified by Krueger) with the tubing string of Leslie. Both the tubing strings of Adams and Leslie were known in the art to function as tubulars for wellbore operations. Accordingly the substitution would generate the predictable result of providing for a tubular to be used in a wellbore operation.
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 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights