DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final office action on the merits and in response to amendments filed on 11/5/2025. All currently pending claims have been considered below. 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 Amendments and Remarks
Applicant's amendments are sufficient to obviate the prior 112(b) rejection of claims 2 & 9. The amendment to claim to exclusively require the "silicon bronze" is sufficient to overcome the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1. New grounds of rejection necessitated by these amendments respectfully follow.
The amendments to independent claims 6 & 12 add "a logging tool-string". Applicant remarks on as-filed page 7 that "[n]othing in [US 2022/0136339] Wheater and [US 2010/0139077] Linzell teach or suggest the missing recitations independent claims 6 and 12". The examiner is obliged to note that claim 1 originally contained the limitation of "a logging tool-string". On page 10 of the prior action, the examiner cited Wheater as teaching this limitation: "logging tool 34" - ¶ 29 of Wheater. The examiner does not view a patentable difference between a "logging tool-string" and a "logging tool" at the level of generality currently recited. The examiner also respectfully notes that the present disclosure has a literally identical statement for the present "logging tool-string" limitation (present as-filed ¶ 33) as found in the prior art (¶ 29 of Wheater), thus further illustrating the lack of patentable distinction between a "logging tool-string" and a "logging tool". The examiner is therefore respectfully obliged to maintain the 103 rejection of independent claims 6 & 12, as described in more detail in the prior art rejections below.
Regarding the drawing objections, 112(a) rejections, and the 112(b) rejection of claims 3-5, 10-11, & 13-16, the examiner is respectfully obliged to hold that the mere addition of the "jar" as a positively required feature in independent claim 1 is not sufficient to overcome all these issues.
The examiner is also respectfully obliged to note that Applicant's Remarks do not attempt to respond to these issues on their merits. Rather Applicant merely assert the issues have been resolved when many of the claims in question have not even been amended, let alone in a way that looks like a bone fide attempt to address these issues. Respectfully, the examiner articulated at length the identified issues with these claims, and Applicant is not responsive to them as is required by MPEP 714.02.
For example, Applicant amends claim 1 to require a generic "jar" and remarks (page 5, as-filed) that "the Applicant respectfully sets forth that the Examiner's concerns are addressed in regard to the drawings and respectfully requests that the objection to the drawings be removed". They assert the same perfunctory addition of "a jar" is sufficient to obviate a written description requirement, when the issues articulated by the examiner on pages 3-6 of the action mailed 5/5/2025 argue that such a perfunctory amendment would not be sufficient. The examiner is therefore respectfully obliged to maintain them.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The "jar" of claims 1-16 is not shown. The examiner notes that while jars are generically known and need not be shown in full exacting detail, Applicant is expressly claiming an assembly with a primary claimed feature that is not shown (the jar) in the assembly (see present figure 3) and also links the position of this unshown feature (the jar) to a primary inventive aspect of the invention (changing the cable drag on the jar, as embodied by claims 2-5, for example). Further, the structure of the jar is recited through "configured to" limitations of the claims. The examiner respectfully asserts that, given the prominence with which the "jar" features in the claims it is necessary and appropriate that it be shown in the figures in sufficient / appropriate detail.
Similarly, claim 2 recites the "jar is configured to fire as a result of firing tension…" This "configuration" is simply not shown in the drawings. The same is similarly true of claim 7.
Similarly, the "distance from the jar" of claims 3-5 is not shown, nor are the "locations" of claims 13-16 shown.
Claim 8 recites "re-cocking the jar by decreasing a tension applied to the wireline cable". This configuration is not shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2, 7, 8, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163.03 "Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issues Aries" subsection V "Original Claim Not Sufficiently Described" (emphasis added)
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim 2 recites "the jar is configured to fire as a result of a firing tension applied to the wireline cable, and wherein a cable drag imparted by the wireline cable increases the firing tension and reduces a jar hammer impact velocity and a resulting impulse."
As similarly discussed in the drawing objections above, the jar is not shown or discussed in any detail, nor is this "configuration" shown or discussed in any detail. Not just "it is shown schematically", but there are literally no details. Rather the claim is recited entirely functionally with simply no description of the details of either a jar "configured to fire as a result of a firing tension" or "…and reduces a jar hammer impact velocity and a resulting impulse" thereof (example (1) in the above MPEP citation).
The examiner also respectfully notes that the "... reduces a jar hammer impact velocity and a resulting impulse" functional limitation would appear to be at least in part dependent on the structure and operation of the jar.
In other words, claim 2 attempts to encompass an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation that covers all ways of performing that function without disclosing any details thereto, let alone at the scope currently claimed, thus warranting this written description rejection. This situation is likewise articulated in MPEP 2173.05(g) - Functional Limitations (emphasis added):
Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. For instance, a single means claim covering every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim.
The examiner acknowledges that features which are well known and understood need not be shown nor discussed in exacting detail:
MPEP 2164.01 - A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
MPEP 2163.03, subsection V - While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed… (as cited above)
MPEP 608.02(d) & 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) - The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).
However, Applicant (A) makes no acknowledgment that these features are well known in the originally filed specification, (B) has not incorporated by reference prior art jars appropriate for use in the present invention, and (C) features the jar very prominently in all the claim groups as patentable & inventive features, thus necessitating an appropriate level of written description for those features.
Claim 7 recites in full "firing the jar by increasing a tension applied to the wireline cable". This configuration / intended use structure has no details in the drawings or specification, and is similarly held as failing 112(a) as described for claim 2 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
Claim 8 recites in full "re-cocking the jar by decreasing a tension applied to the wireline cable" and is similarly held as failing 112(a) as described for claim 2 above.
Claim 16 recites in full "the location reduces a tension applied to the wireline cable which causes the jar to fire" and therefore encompasses the tension applied firing jar held as failing 112(a) as described above.
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.
Claims 2-5, 9-11, & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recite "the jar is configured to fire as a result of firing tension…" However no jar, no configuration, and no details thereof are shown or discussed in any detail. It is therefore unclear in light of the specification what "configuration" is structurally required by claim 2.
This indefiniteness issue is also similarly articulated by the "means-plus-function" discussion in MPEP 2181, subsection I: "Jar" is a broad & generic term for performing the claimed function, "configured to" is a linking term, and the remaining limitation are the functional outcome. However Applicant simply does not disclosure the structure for performing this function and the claim is therefore both indefinite under 112(b) and fails the written description requirement of 112(a), as articulated in MPEP 2181, subsection II(A), and subsection IV.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2.
Claims 3-5 each link the "distance" the "one or more wireline standoffs are located" relative to "the jar" to a functional outcome. For example, claim 3 recites "…which reduces the cable drag". The examiner respectfully holds this to be indefinite for several reasons.
First, the functional outcomes which define the "distance" are variable, context dependent, & subjective. Compounding this nebulous functional claim language, there is no guidance in the specification as to what these distances might be without improperly importing a numerical value into the claim (which Applicant themselves disclaim in the final paragraph of the as-filed specification). What "distance" the functional outcomes of claims 3-5 ("cable drag" - claim 3; "key-seating" - claim 4; "prevents differential sticking" - claim 5) define will depend on several well known variables:
From wellbore to wellbore, and the trajectory of those individual wellbores;
Dependent on the formations which define the individual wellbores;
Dependent on the pressures of those formation;
Between wireline style, diameter, material, and how long of a run of wireline extends into those individual wellbores with their individual trajectories, formations, and formation pressures;
Depending on the material and diameter of the standoffs (which are unrecited in the claims), on top of all the above compounding factors;
Depending on the jar style dimensions, and material of the jar, on top of all the above compounding factors;
And any number of other environmental variables.
This indefiniteness is further illustrated by the "distance" being linked to an unshown and undisclosed tool: the jar. Put simply, there is no way to determine what the clear metes and bounds of the "distances" of claims 3-5 in light of the specification without improperly importing a specific numerical value. The disclosure of present ¶ 32 lists a list of possible numerical distances, but these distances are not limiting on the claims. And it is improper to import such a limitation into the claim where note required (MPEP 2111.01, subsection II), as Applicant themselves acknowledge in the final paragraph of the present specification. By Applicant's own disclosure in ¶ 32, there are numerous circumstantial variables that affect this "distance", rendering it indefinite as a claim element as currently worded.
The examiner asks simply: What is the numerical distance required by claim 3 in plain, non-functional language, and how is this clearly and definitely encompassed by the claim? If the answer requires the equivocating inclusion of the above variables, attempting to imply / import specific numerical values from ¶ 32 into the claims, and / or details not present in the originally filed disclosure, the examiner respectfully asserts the limitation is reasonably indefinite.
Claim 10 recites "preventing key-seating of the wireline assembly". This is held to be indefinite as similarly described for claims 3-5 above: This is, per the specification, linked to a distance that is not described in detail in the specification and highly dependent on numerous contextual variables, therefore making the clear metes and bounds of claim 10 unclear.
Put another way "preventing key-seating of the wireline assembly" is merely a desired functional outcome; purported benefits of the method. It is therefore unclear how or if claim 10 further limits parent method claim 10. Does prior art which read on claim 6 naturally read on claim 10? If not, what does claim 10 additionally require? Both are unclear.
Claim 11 recites "preventing differential sticking of the wireline assembly" which is held as indefinite as similarly described for claim 10 above.
Claim 13 recites "the location is selected in order to reduce friction…resulting in a lower surface cable tension…" which is held as indefinite as described for the other claims above, respectfully not repeated again in full here. The claim is largely purported benefits linked to an indefinite "distance" that is highly dependent on numerous contextual variables. The purported benefits of claim 13 appear to naturally follow the structural requirements of parent claim 12. If not, it is unclear how or if claim 13 further limits claim 12.
Claim 14 is the same as claims 4 & 10 and is held as indefinite as described above.
Claim 15 is the same as claims 5 & 11, indefinite as described above.
Claim 16 recites "the location reduces a tension applied to the wireline cable which causes the jar to fire", which is held as indefinite as similarly described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 & 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0136339 (Wheater) in view of US 2010/0139077 (Linzell).
Independent claim 1. Wheater discloses a wireline assembly (title, fig 3) including a jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jars, allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. "a jar disposed on the wireline" - claim 2), comprising:
a wireline cable ("wireline cable 18" - fig 3 & ¶ 27);
a logging tool-string ("logging tool 34" - ¶ 29. The examiner does not view "logging tool-string" as requiring more than a "logging tool" at the level of generality presently claimed); and
one or more wireline standoffs located on the wireline cable ("wireline standoff 2" - figs 1-3) above the jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jar" - ¶ 20. "Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising increasing an efficiency of operating a wireline jar disposed on the wireline" - "Claim 5. The method of claim 2, wherein the operating comprises re-rocking the wireline jar" - "Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises attenuating an applied surface tension applied to the wireline before the applied surface tension reaches the wireline jar". Wheater clearly teaches that the use of the wireline standoffs reduce the tension applied to the jar by reducing cable friction above the jar, as claimed), wherein each of the one or more wireline standoffs comprises a cable insert ("a cable insert 10" - fig 7 & ¶ 22) disposed between a pair of opposing assemblies ("half shells 8" - ibid), and wherein the cable insert comprises an anti-rotation spigot ("anti-rotation spigot 64" on 10: fig 7).
Wheater does not expressly disclose that the cable insert comprises silicon bronze. Rather Wheater discloses "[t]he cable inserts 10 may comprise a suitable material, such as aluminum" (¶ 24).
However Linzell discloses the use of silicon bronze in a well tool due to its "excellent corrosion resistance" and "its ultimate tensile strength and % elongation approximately match[ing…] low carbon steel" (¶ 141).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use silicon bronze as taught by Linzell as the cable inserts taught by Wheater. First, Wheater discloses "[t]he cable inserts 10 may be configured to slightly deform around the outer wireline cable armour during installation without physically damaging the wireline cable" (¶ 22) and Linzell teaches that silicon bronze is used for "a compressible sealing element" (¶ 58) which compresses around another tubular element (¶172) while still retaining its desired properties. Further, Linzell teaches silicon bronze has tensile strength comparable to low carbon steel, teaches that the material is known and suitable for wellbore use, and consequently has "excellent corrosion resistance" (¶ 141), and wellbore fluid is well known to be corrosive. In other words, Linzell teaches silicon bronze has at least three features that lend itself to use in Wheater. 1: Being compressible (¶ 58 of Linzell), which is also taught by Wheater for the cable inserts specifically (¶ 22 of Wheater). 2: Having tensile and elongation characteristics comparable to steel (¶ 141 of Linzell). And 3: Having "excellent corrosion resistance (¶ 141 of Linzell).
2. In light of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, the respective limitations have been interpreted as best able. The wireline assembly of claim 1, wherein the jar is configured to fire as a result of a firing tension applied to the wireline cable ("allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises allowing the wireline jar to be fired at a lower surface tension applied to the wireline), and wherein a cable drag imparted to the wireline cable increases the firing tension ("allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20) and reduces a jar hammer impact velocity and a resulting impulse (appears to be an inherent result of reducing drag and wireline contact with the wellbore walls as discussed in the 112 rejections above in the same manner as the present case; see also MPEP 2112, subsection I).
3. The wireline assembly of claim 2, wherein at least one of the one or more wireline standoffs are located on the wireline cable at a distance from the jar which reduces the cable drag (fig 2; "allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises allowing the wireline jar to be fired at a lower surface tension applied to the wireline. "A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking, wireline cable key seating, and high cable drags by reducing or eliminating contact of the wireline cable with the borehole wall during the logging operation" - abstract. In other words, a jar is taught, reducing drag is taught, and the disclosure is commensurate with the present disclosure and claims, especially given the indefinite nature of this limitation as discussed above).
4. The wireline assembly of claim 2, wherein at least one of the one or more wireline standoffs are located on the wireline cable at a distance from the jar ("a distance" between standoffs and the unshown, but expressly taught jar, is clearly shown and inherently present in fig 2) which prevents key-seating of the wireline assembly ("A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking, wireline cable key seating" - abstract. "The wireline standoffs 2 may be installed on the wireline cable 18, for example, to either straddle known permeable zones where differential sticking is a risk (e.g., eliminating cable contact 100%) or they can be placed at regular intervals along the wireline cable 18 to minimize key-seating, taking into account, for example, the dogleg severity of the borehole. For boreholes with higher dogleg severity, the spacing between wireline standoffs 2 on the wireline cable 18 may be reduced. In certain embodiments, the spacing of wireline standoffs 2 on the wireline cable 18 may be from about 10 feet to more than 100 feet, depending on the requirements for the particular borehole being logged." - ¶ 28).
5. The wireline assembly of claim 2, wherein at least one of the one or more wireline standoffs are located on the wireline cable (fig 2) at a distance from the jar ("a distance" between standoffs and the unshown, but expressly taught jar, is clearly shown and inherently in fig 2) which prevents differential sticking of the wireline assembly ("A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking" - abstract; ¶ 28).
Independent claim 6. Wheater discloses a method of reducing cable friction (abstract, ¶s 20 & 25) above a jar ("the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jars" - ¶ 20) of a wireline assembly (title, abstract, fig 3), comprising:
providing a wireline assembly (fig 3) comprising a wireline cable ("wireline cable 18" - fig 3 & ¶ 27), a logging tool-string ("logging tool 34" - ¶ 29. The examiner does not view "logging tool-string" as requiring more than a "logging tool" at the level of generality presently claimed), and the jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jars, allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. Claims 2-5);
securing one or more wireline standoffs to the wireline cable ("wireline standoff 2" - figs 1-3) above the jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jar" - ¶ 20. "Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising increasing an efficiency of operating a wireline jar disposed on the wireline" - "Claim 5. The method of claim 2, wherein the operating comprises re-rocking the wireline jar" - "Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises attenuating an applied surface tension applied to the wireline before the applied surface tension reaches the wireline jar". Wheater clearly teaches that the use of the wireline standoffs reduce the tension applied to the jar by reducing cable friction above the jar, as claimed), wherein each of the one or more wireline standoffs comprises a cable insert ("a cable insert 10" - fig 7 & ¶ 22) disposed between a pair of opposing assemblies ("half shells 8" - ibid), and wherein the cable insert comprises an anti-rotation spigot ("anti-rotation spigot 64" on 10: fig 7);
conveying the wireline assembly into a borehole (fig 3); and
reducing a cable friction caused by the wireline cable contacting a wall of the borehole ("…by reducing or eliminating contact of the wireline cable with the borehole wall during the logging operation" - abstract), wherein the reducing results from the one or more wireline standoffs lowering an area of contact between the wireline cable and the wall of the borehole (ibid; " One of the many potential advantages of the present invention is that the present invention may ameliorate the effects of differential sticking and/or key-seating of the wireline cable by reducing or eliminating direct contact of the cable to the borehole wall. In accordance with present embodiments, this may be achieved by coupling a plurality of wireline standoffs onto the wireline cable, resulting, for example, in a lower contact area per unit length of open hole, lower applied sideways pressure of the wireline against the borehole wall, and/or lower cable drag when conveying the wireline in or out of the hole." - ¶ 20. "…wherein the reducing results from a lower contact area of the wireline per unit length of the borehole" - claim 1).
Wheater does not expressly disclose that the cable insert comprises silicon bronze. However Linzell discloses the use of silicon bronze in a well tool due to its "excellent corrosion resistance" and "its ultimate tensile strength and % elongation approximately match[ing…] low carbon steel" (¶ 141).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use silicon bronze as taught by Linzell as the cable inserts taught by Wheater. First, Wheater discloses "[t]he cable inserts 10 may be configured to slightly deform around the outer wireline cable armour during installation without physically damaging the wireline cable" (¶ 22) and Linzell teaches that silicon bronze is used for "a compressible sealing element" (¶ 58) which compresses around another tubular element (¶172). Further, Linzell teaches silicon bronze has tensile strength comparable to low carbon steel, teaches that the material is known and suitable for wellbore use, and consequently has "excellent corrosion resistance" (¶ 141), and wellbore fluid is well known to be corrosive. In other wors, Linzell teaches silicon bronze has at least three features that lend itself to use in Wheater. 1: Being compressible (¶ 58 of Linzell), which is also taught by Wheater for the cable inserts specifically (¶ 22 of Wheater). 2: Having tensile and elongation characteristics comparable to steel (¶ 141 of Linzell). And 3: Having "excellent corrosion resistance (¶ 141 of Linzell).
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising firing the jar by increasing a tension applied to the wireline cable ("wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jars, allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)." - ¶ 20. Claim 4).
9. The method of claim 6, wherein a tension is applied to the wireline cable ("…wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises attenuating an applied surface tension applied to the wireline before the applied surface tension reaches the wireline jar" - claim 6, Also ¶ 20), and further comprising attenuating a tension applied to the wireline cable (ibid).
10. The method of claim 6, further comprising preventing key-seating of the wireline assembly ("A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking, wireline cable key seating" - abstract. "The wireline standoffs 2 may be installed on the wireline cable 18, for example, to either straddle known permeable zones where differential sticking is a risk (e.g., eliminating cable contact 100%) or they can be placed at regular intervals along the wireline cable 18 to minimize key-seating, taking into account, for example, the dogleg severity of the borehole. For boreholes with higher dogleg severity, the spacing between wireline standoffs 2 on the wireline cable 18 may be reduced. In certain embodiments, the spacing of wireline standoffs 2 on the wireline cable 18 may be from about 10 feet to more than 100 feet, depending on the requirements for the particular borehole being logged." - ¶ 28).
11. The method of claim 6, further comprising preventing differential sticking of the wireline assembly ("A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking" - abstract; ¶ 28").
Independent claim 12. Wheater discloses a method of assembling a wireline assembly (fig 3) including a jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jars, allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. "a jar disposed on the wireline" - claim 2), comprising
a. disposing a wireline assembly (fig 3) comprising a wireline cable ("wireline cable 18" - ¶ 27), a logging tool-string ("logging tool 34" - ¶ 29. The examiner does not view "logging tool-string" as requiring more than a "logging tool" at the level of generality presently claimed), and the jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jars, allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. Claims 2-5) into a borehole (fig 3);
b. placing two parts of a cable insert ("the wireline standoff 2 contains two cable inserts 10 with each of the opposing assemblies 4 contains a corresponding cable insert 10" - ¶ 22) around the wireline cable ("the cable inserts 10 may be configured to clamp directly onto the wireline cable using the bolts 6. In general, the cable inserts 10 should mate to form a central bore 11 through the wireline standoff 2 in accordance with certain embodiments. The cable inserts 10 may be configured to slightly deform around the outer wireline cable armour during installation without physically damaging the wireline cable" - ¶ 22) at a location above the jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jar" - ¶ 20. "Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising increasing an efficiency of operating a wireline jar disposed on the wireline" - "Claim 5. The method of claim 2, wherein the operating comprises re-rocking the wireline jar" - "Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises attenuating an applied surface tension applied to the wireline before the applied surface tension reaches the wireline jar". Wheater clearly teaches that the use of the wireline standoffs reduce the tension applied to the jar by reducing cable friction above the jar, as claimed), wherein the cable insert comprises an anti-rotation spigot ("anti-rotation spigot 64" on 10: fig 7);
c. securing the two parts of the cable insert to each other (via "bolts 6" and/or "fasteners 74… may be used to retain the cable inserts 10 in the half shells 8" - ¶ 33);
d. placing a pair of opposing assemblies around the cable insert ("half shells 8" - fig 7 & ¶ 22);
e. securing the pair of opposing assemblies to each other (via "bolts 6" and/or "fasteners 74… may be used to retain the cable inserts 10 in the half shells 8" - ¶ 33. The examiner notes that the securing / joining methods, and the drawings thereof in Wheater are identical to the present case); and
f. repeating steps (b) through (f) at a different location on the wireline cable (multiple standoffs are shown in fig 3) above the jar ("the use of wireline standoffs may also enable more efficient use of wireline jars in the logging string since the standoffs should reduce the cable friction above the jar" - ¶ 20. "Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising increasing an efficiency of operating a wireline jar disposed on the wireline" - "Claim 5. The method of claim 2, wherein the operating comprises re-rocking the wireline jar" - "Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises attenuating an applied surface tension applied to the wireline before the applied surface tension reaches the wireline jar". Wheater clearly teaches that the use of the wireline standoffs reduce the tension applied to the jar by reducing cable friction above the jar, as claimed).
Wheater does not expressly disclose that the cable insert comprises silicon bronze. However Linzell discloses the use of silicon bronze in a well tool due to its "excellent corrosion resistance" and "its ultimate tensile strength and % elongation approximately match[ing…] low carbon steel" (¶ 141).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use silicon bronze as taught by Linzell as the cable inserts taught by Wheater. First, Wheater discloses "[t]he cable inserts 10 may be configured to slightly deform around the outer wireline cable armour during installation without physically damaging the wireline cable" (¶ 22) and Linzell teaches that silicon bronze is used for "a compressible sealing element" (¶ 58) which compresses around another tubular element (¶172). Further, Linzell teaches silicon bronze has tensile strength comparable to low carbon steel, teaches that the material is known and suitable for wellbore use, and consequently has "excellent corrosion resistance" (¶ 141), and wellbore fluid is well known to be corrosive. In other wors, Linzell teaches silicon bronze has at least three features that lend itself to use in Wheater. 1: Being compressible (¶ 58 of Linzell), which is also taught by Wheater for the cable inserts specifically (¶ 22 of Wheater). 2: Having tensile and elongation characteristics comparable to steel (¶ 141 of Linzell). And 3: Having "excellent corrosion resistance (¶ 141 of Linzell).
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the location is selected in order to reduce a friction caused by the wireline cable contacting a wall of the borehole resulting in a lower surface cable tension when logging up out of the borehole and a higher surface cable tension when logging down in the borehole (Appears to be inherent to the method of claim 12 as discussed in the 112(b) rejections above. Wheater expressly discloses reducing friction and wireline cable contact the wall of the borehole: abstract, ¶ 20, 25. The benefits / results thereof naturally follow).
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the location is selected in order to prevent key-seating of the wireline assembly ("A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking, wireline cable key seating" - abstract. "The wireline standoffs 2 may be installed on the wireline cable 18, for example, to either straddle known permeable zones where differential sticking is a risk (e.g., eliminating cable contact 100%) or they can be placed at regular intervals along the wireline cable 18 to minimize key-seating, taking into account, for example, the dogleg severity of the borehole. For boreholes with higher dogleg severity, the spacing between wireline standoffs 2 on the wireline cable 18 may be reduced. In certain embodiments, the spacing of wireline standoffs 2 on the wireline cable 18 may be from about 10 feet to more than 100 feet, depending on the requirements for the particular borehole being logged." - ¶ 28).
15. The method of claim 12, wherein the location is selected in order to prevent differential sticking of the wireline assembly ("A wireline standoff that may ameliorate the effects of wireline cable differential sticking" - abstract; ¶ 28).
16. The method of claim 12, wherein the location reduces a tension applied to the wireline cable which causes the jar to fire ("allowing firing at lower surface tensions and easier re-rocking of the jars in boreholes where high cable drag is a problem (attenuating the applied surface tension before it can reach the wireline cable head and jars)" - ¶ 20. Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the increasing an efficiency comprises allowing the wireline jar to be fired at a lower surface tension applied to the wireline).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2022/0136339 (Wheater) & US 2010/0139077 (Linzell), in further view of US 4,007,798 (Gazda).
Claim 8. Wheater discloses re-cocking the jar (claim 5) but does not explicitly disclose that it is done by decreasing a tension applied to the wireline cable. However Gazda discloses a hydraulic jar (title) conveyed by wireline (col 5:22-44) that is fired by applying tension to the wireline (ibid) and is re-set / re-cock by decreasing a tension applied to the wireline ("To return the jar to a collapsed position so that another impactive force may be imparted, the tension in the wireline is slacked off…" - col 5:45-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the jar taught by Gazda in the wireline assembly taught by the combination. Wheater is clear that a jar is used, fired by applied tension, and re-set downhole (as cited above) but does not disclose the details of such re-setting, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere for a more detailed description for actual implementation. Gazda teaches a comparable tension-fired, wireline conveyed jar (as cited above), how to re-set the jar downhole (ibid), in a short, compact hydraulic jar with other disclosed benefits thereof (Gazda, col 1:56 to col 2:5).
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 Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676