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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig. 1 is hand drawn while the reference numerals of Fig. 2-36 are all also hand drawn, which do not have a consistent line weight or size throughout. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 and 12 are 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the drag block" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is indefinite because of the limitation “the ratio of the biasing force of the biasing configuration to the biasing force of the biasing configuration is greater than 5:1”. These are the same forces, so the ratio will always be 1:1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the anchor” and "the drag block" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the flow by area-compensated anchor configuration” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, 12-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reed (US 2765855).
With regards to claim 3, Reed discloses an anchoring assembly configured for integration within a flow conductor that is emplaceable within a wellbore string (Fig. 4), that is disposed within a wellbore that extends into a subterranean formation, wherein the anchoring assembly is transitionable from an anchoring ineffective state (Fig. 1) to an anchoring effective state (Fig. 2) for effecting anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string (C), comprising: an anchoring tool including: an anchoring tool mount (10), including an outermost surface; an anchor configuration coupled to the anchoring tool mount; and a spacer (6) extending outwardly from the outermost surface of the anchoring tool mount; wherein: the anchoring assembly is co-operable with the wellbore string such that, while the flow conductor (T) is established and disposed within the wellbore string: the transitioning includes displacement of the anchor configuration, outwardly relative to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring tool mount (10), with effect that: the anchoring configuration becomes disposed further outwardly, relative to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring tool mount (anchor 14 moves outwardly relative to the longitudinal axis of mount 10), than in the anchoring-ineffective state; and the anchor configuration becomes engaged to the wellbore string (C) such that the anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string is established; and the anchoring assembly becomes emplaced eccentrically relative to the central longitudinal axis of the wellbore string (Fig. 2); and the anchor configuration and the spacer are co-operable with the wellbore string such that, while the anchoring assembly is integrated within the flow conductor, that is disposed within the wellbore string, and the anchoring assembly is disposed in the anchoring-effective state, displacement, of the anchoring tool mount, relative to the central longitudinal axis of the wellbore string, being urged by application of a tensile force to the flow conductor in the uphole direction, and which is sufficient to defeat the anchoring, is resisted by the spacer (col. 2:32-col. 3:30).
With regards to claim 7, Reed discloses the co-operation of the anchor configuration and the spacer, with the wellbore string, is such that the wellbore string interferes with outwardly displacement of the spacer relative to the central longitudinal axis of the wellbore string (the spacer 6 has a frictional relationship with the string C, such that the spacer 6 might not fully expand).
With regards to claim 10, Reed discloses an anchoring assembly configured for integration within a flow conductor that is emplaceable within a wellbore string, that is disposed within a wellbore that extends into a subterranean formation, wherein the anchoring assembly is transitionable from an anchoring ineffective state (Fig. 1) to an anchoring effective state (Fig. 2) for effecting anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string, comprising: an anchoring tool including: an anchor configuration; and a drag block (6 is considered the drag block) configuration; wherein: the anchor configuration and the drag block configuration are co-operatively configured such that there is an absence of resistance to the actuation of the anchor configuration by a biasing force configuration which is biasing the drag block configuration into the contact engagement with the wellbore string (col. 2:32-col. 3:30).
With regards to claim 12, Reed discloses the anchor (14) and the drag block (6) are aligned, along a longitudinal axis that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore string, and spaced apart by a minimum distance less than five (5) feet (it is inherent that wellbore diameters measure as low as under one foot, and thus that distance from anchor 14 to drag block 6 is inferred to be less than 5 feet).
With regards to claim 13, Reed discloses an anchoring assembly configured for integration within a flow conductor (T) that is emplaceable within a wellbore string (C), that is disposed within a wellbore that extends into a subterranean formation, wherein the anchoring assembly is transitionable from an anchoring ineffective state (Fig. 1) to an anchoring effective state (Fig. 2) for effecting anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string, comprising: an anchoring tool including: an anchoring tool mount (10), including an outermost surface; an anchor configuration coupled to the anchoring tool mount; and an anchoring tool channel (between 12 in Fig. 5, or on either side of the mount 10 in Fig. 5) configuration that is recessed within the outermost surface of the anchoring tool mount; wherein: the anchoring tool channel configuration is disposed, relative to the anchor configuration, in an alignment which is effective for conducting reservoir fluid past the anchor configuration.
With regards to claim 14, Reed discloses the anchoring tool channel is defined by a plurality of anchoring tool channels (between 12 in Fig. 5, or on either side of the mount 10 in Fig. 5), which are recessed within the outermost surface, and angularly spaced relative to one another.
With regards to claim 17, Reed discloses the transitioning includes displacement of the anchor (14) configuration, outwardly relative to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring tool mount (10), with effect that: the anchoring configuration becomes disposed further outwardly, relative to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring tool mount, than in the anchoring-ineffective state; and the anchor configuration becomes engaged to the wellbore string such that the anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string is established (Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 18, Reed discloses an actuator tool including: an actuator tool mount (4); and an inclined surface (13) configuration that is coupled to the actuator tool mount; wherein: the anchoring tool and the actuator tool are co-operatively configured such that, while the flow conductor is established and disposed within the wellbore string, the transitioning is responsive to urging, of the outwardly displacement of the anchoring configuration, by the inclined surface configuration, that is responsive to application of a tensile force to the actuator tool (col. 2:32-col. 3:30).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of the technical specification sheet of the Black Gold Hydraulic Anchor (Non Patent Literature item #1 from the Information Disclosure Statement of 11/25/24, hereafter Black Gold).
With regards to claim 1, Reed discloses an anchoring assembly configured for integration within a flow conductor (T) that is emplaceable within a wellbore string (Fig. 4), that is disposed within a wellbore that extends into a subterranean formation, wherein the anchoring assembly is transitionable (Fig. 1 -> Fig. 2) from an anchoring ineffective state to an anchoring effective state for effecting anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string, comprising: an anchoring tool including: an anchoring tool mount (10); and an anchor configuration coupled to the anchoring tool mount; wherein: the transitioning includes displacement of the anchor configuration, outwardly relative to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring tool mount (anchor 14 moves outwardly relative to the longitudinal axis of mount 10), with effect that: the anchoring configuration (Fig. 2) becomes disposed further outwardly, relative to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring assembly, than in the anchoring-ineffective state (Fig. 1); and the anchor configuration becomes engaged to the wellbore string (C); and the anchoring of the flow conductor to the wellbore string is established. Reed shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to explicitly disclose that the anchor configuration is engaged to the wellbore string over an interfacial area that is defined by a total axial length of at least two (2) inches. Black Gold discloses a downhole anchor with various sizes for various wellbores (pg. 3, discloses numerous sizes from 4.5 inch to 9.625 inch diameter). It can be seen from the associated figures that the axial length of the anchor is near to equal or greater than the diameter of the anchor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the size disclosed in Black Gold with the anchor taught in Reed with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to allow for various sizes of completions to be anchored to by the assembly as is common in the downhole arts.
With regards to claim 2, Reed discloses the engagement, between the anchor configuration and the wellbore string is a flush engagement (Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 8, modified Reed discloses the spacer extends outwardly from an outermost surface of the anchoring assembly along an axis that is perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis of the anchoring assembly, by a distance of at least 0.5 of an inch (if the outer diameter of the tool is up to 9.625 inches, as shown in Black Gold).
With regards to claim 9, modified Reed shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose the spacer is spaced apart from the anchoring configuration by a total axial distance of at least 20 inches. It is taken as Official Notice that various downhole distances are used on tools of a tool string in the downhole production art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the distance between the anchor and spacer of 20 inches with the anchor taught in modified Reed with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done for any number of reasons, such as extending the length of the tool for enhanced centering, or to cover a greater area of the wellbore, or to reduce twist of the wellbore string.
With regards to claim 11, modified Reed discloses the drag block (6) is biased into the contact engagement with a respective biasing configuration, and the anchor is biased (by spring 19) to retraction from the casing with a respective biasing configuration. It shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose that the ratio of the biasing force of the drag block biasing configuration to the biasing force of the anchor biasing configuration is greater than 5:1. It is taken as Official Notice that the spring bias of many tools downhole will vary greatly with their intended use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ratio disclosed above with the anchor taught in modified Reed with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done after calculation of the proper spring forces need in different size anchors for downhole use.
With regards to claim 15, 16 and 19, modified Reed shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose each one of the anchoring tool channels, independently, has a depth of at least 1/16 inch or a length of at least three (3) inches. Nor does it disclose the cross-sectional flow area of the anchoring tool channel configuration is at least 1.275 square inches. It is inferred from the overall diameters presented in Black Gold that each of the channels of modified Reed are at least 1/16 inch deep and have a length of at least three (3) inches and that the cross-sectional flow area of the anchoring tool channel configuration is at least 1.275 square inches.
With regards to claim 20, modified Reed shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose the ratio of, (i) the cross-sectional flow area of the aligned anchoring tool channel configuration, to (ii) the cross-sectional area occupied by the anchoring tool is at least 0.121. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ratio disclosed above with the anchor taught in modified Reed with a reasonable expectation of success. It may be inferred from the Figures of Reed with the diameters provided in Black Gold, that the channel ratio would be at least 0.121 without undue experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art all show similar features to those of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P STEPHENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/DANIEL P STEPHENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676