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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 “display unit”, on line 2 of claim 5; “a single or 3 axis accelerometer”, on line 2 of claim 6; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-11 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.
For claim 1, the first limitation “the motor”, on line 13, is recited on line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this “the motor”, on line 13, is the same as “an electrical motor”, on line 1 or different “the electrical motor”. Furthermore, limitations “the motor”, on lines 13, 17 and 20, are unclear whether these “the motor”, on lines 13, 17 and 20, are “the motor”, on line 13, or “an electrical motor”, on line 1. Clarification is required.
For claim 1, the recitation “the gearbox”, on line 16, lacks clear antecedent basis.
For claim 1, the recitation “the desired direction”, on line 21, lacks clear antecedent basis.
For claim 2, the recitation “the input shaft”, on line 2, lacks clear antecedent basis.
For claim 4, the recitation “the polarity of the electric supply from the battery pack” (emphasis added), on line 3, lacks clear antecedent basis.
For claim 4, the recitation “the reverse direction”, on line 4, lacks clear antecedent basis.
For claim 4, the recitation “to rotate the output of the electric motor in a reverse direction as well as a forwards direction” (emphasis added), on lines 4-5, is indefinite. It is unclear how “to rotate the output” of the electrical motor in in a reverse direction as well as a forwards direction.
For claim 5, the recitation “the current”, on line 3, lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 11, as best understand, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Southgate et al. (hereinafter Southgate, US 2015/0107852 A1) in view of Frazier et al. (hereinafter Frazier, US 2016/0115753 a1), further in view of Stumpf (US 5,444,318 A).
For claim 1, Southgate discloses a braking system for resisting or permitting rotation of an electrical motor, wherein the braking system is for use in a downhole tool comprising the electrical motor (Fig. 1 of Southgate disclose a braking system 10 for resisting or permitting rotation of an electrical motor 70, wherein the braking system is for use in a downhole tool 70 comprising the electrical motor – see Southgate, Fig. 1, abstract, paragraphs [0041]. Southgate discloses the downhole tool 70 which does not disclose the detail of the downhole tool 70. However, Figs. 3-4 of Frazier discloses detail the downhole tool 12/100 including the electrical motor 66 – see Frazier, Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0040] and [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the downhole tool of Southgate by using a specific the tool as taught in Figs. 3-4 of Frazier’s reference for purpose of obtaining higher penetration rates, reduced drill sting wear and the ability to operate effectively in deep, challenging horizontal well);
wherein the braking system comprises a power control module (Fig. 1 od Southgate discloses the braking system which comprises a power control module 10 – see Southgate, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043]), the power control module comprising:
a housing (Figs. 1 and 7 of Southgate disclose housing 25 and housing 30 which altogether constitute a housing 25, 30);
a battery pack (Figs. 1-2 of Southgate discloses a battery pack 180 – see Southgate, Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0054]); and
an electronic control circuit (Fig. 1 of Southgate discloses main module 20 and safety switch 50, which altogether constitute an electronic control circuit 20, 50) for controlling operation of the battery pack (Figs. 9 and 13 of Southgate disclose an electronic control circuit 20 for controlling operation of the battery pack 180 – see Southgate, Figs. 9 and 13, paragraphs [0137]-[0141] and [0161]-[0162]);
wherein the housing is configured to contain the battery pack and electronic control circuit such that the battery pack and electronic control circuit are mountable to and removable from the downhole tool as a single unit (Figs. 1-2 and 7 of Southgate disclose the housing 25, 30 which is configured to contain the battery pack 180 and electronic control circuit 20 such that the battery pack 180 and electronic control circuit 20 are connected each other via electrical connector 35 as a single unit 20, 35, 180, wherein the battery pack 180 and electronic control circuit 20 are mountable to and removable from the downhole tool 70 as a single unit – see Southgate, Figs. 1-2 and 7, paragraphs [0041]-[0043], [0096]-[0097] and [0115]); and
wherein the electronic control circuit comprises a switch which is arranged to automatically short circuit the motor to brake the motor to resist rotation of the motor in an undesired direction until operation of the electric motor is desired (Fig. 1 of Southgate in view of Frazier disclose the electronic control circuit 20, 50 which comprises a switch 50 which is arranged to automatically short circuit Southgate’s motor 70/ Frazier’s motor 66 to brake the motor to resist rotation of the motor 70/66 in an undesired direction until operation of the electric motor 70/60 is desired – see Southgate, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0063]-[0064] and Frazier, Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0040] and [0047]); and
wherein when operation of the electric motor is to commence, the electronic control circuit overrides the short circuit and opens the switch to permit the battery pack to power the motor under instruction of the electronic control circuit and rotate the electric motor in the desired direction (see Southgate, Figs. 10-11 and 13, paragraphs [0063]-[0064], [0149] and [0163]-[0169]).
Southgate in view of Frazier discloses the electric motor which is connected to the gearbox (Fig. 5 of Frazier discloses the electric motor 204 which is connected to the gearbox 206 – see Frazier, Fig. 5, paragraph [0051]). Frazier is silent for disclosing magnetic brake, wherein the magnetic brake comprises at least one magnet located between the electric motor and the gearbox, wherein the at least one magnet further resists rotation of the motor.
However, Stumpf discloses magnetic brake, wherein the magnetic brake comprises at least one magnet (Fig. 1 of Stumpf discloses magnetic brake which comprises magnet 23, 25 – see Stumpf, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 43-49 and col. 4, lines 29-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Southgate in view of Frazier to incorporate teaching of Stumpf for purpose of controlling rotation of motor efficiently.
Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf discloses magnet located between the electric motor and the gearbox, wherein the at least one magnet further resists rotation of the motor (Fig. 3A of Stumpf discloses magnets 23, 25 located in stator poles 27, 29, wherein the at least one magnet further resists rotation of the motor – see Stumpf, Fig. 3A, col. 3, lines 45-49 and col. 4, lines 29-46. Figs. 4-5 of Frazier discloses the motor 120 connected to the gearbox 108 – see Frazier, Figs. 4-5, paragraph [0051]. Stumpf and Frazier do not disclose the magnet located between the electric motor and the gearbox. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to locate Stumpf’s magnet between the Frazier’s electric motor 120 and Frazier’s gearbox 108, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermove, placing a magnet brake between the motor and gearbox offers superior torque control, high-speed braking capabilities, and increased durability).
For claim 2, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system of claim 1, wherein the at least one magnet is located adjacent to the input shaft of the gearbox (Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose Stumpf’s magnet between the Frazier’s electric motor 120 and Frazier’s gearbox 108 except for placing at least one magnet is adjacent to the input shaft of the gearbox. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to locate Stumpf’s magnet be adjacent to the input shaft 276 of the gearbox 206 (see Fig. 6 of Frazier), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermove, placing a magnet brake which is adjacent to the input shaft of a gearbox provides high-speed, low-torque braking and reduces brake size).
For claim 3, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system of claim 1, wherein the power control module further comprises a positive electric output terminal and a negative electric output terminal for supplying electric power from the battery pack to a respective positive electric input terminal and a respective negative electric input terminal provided on the electric motor, and wherein the battery pack is mountable to the electric motor such that the positive electric output terminal of the power control module is in electrical communication with the positive electric input terminal of the electric motor and the negative electric output terminal of the power control module is in electrical communication with the negative electric input terminal of the electric motor (Fig. 1 and 13 of Southgate in view of Frazier disclose the power control module 10 further comprises a positive electric output terminal and a negative electric output terminal for supplying electric power from the battery pack 180 to a respective positive electric input terminal and a respective negative electric input terminal provided on the electric motor 70, and wherein the battery pack 180 is mountable to the electric motor 70 such that the positive electric output terminal of the power control module is in electrical communication with the positive electric input terminal of the electric motor 70 and the negative electric output terminal of the power control module 10 is in electrical communication with the negative electric input terminal of the electric motor 70 – see Southgate, Fig. 1 and 13, paragraphs [0161]-[0162]).
For claim 5, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system of claim 1, further comprising a data and/or power port which can be used by an operator to connect a display unit when the power control module is at surface to view the current being supplied by the battery pack or other characteristics of the power control module, electronic control circuit or battery pack (Fig. 18 of Frazier discloses a data and/or power port 1830 which can be used by an operator to connect a display unit 1850 when the power control module is at surface to view the current being supplied by the battery pack or other characteristics of the power control module 1800, electronic control circuit 1810, or battery pack – see Frazier, Fig. 18, paragraphs [0158] and [0162]-[0164]).
For claim 6, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system of claim 1, wherein a motion detection means comprising a single or 3 axis accelerometer is provided either within the power control module or another component of the downhole tool and a data output from the accelerometer can be inputted into the electronic control circuit and can be used by the electronic control circuit to indicate whether the downhole tool has completed an operation (Figs. 1 and 8 of Southgate disclose a motion detection means 190 comprising a single or 3 axis accelerometer is provided either within the power control module 10 or another component of the downhole tool and a data output from the accelerometer 190 can be inputted into the electronic control circuit 120 and can be used by the electronic control circuit 120 to indicate whether the downhole tool has completed an operation – see Southgate, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0056], [0123] and [0174]).
For claim 7, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system of claim 1, wherein the magnetic brake comprises a plurality of magnets (Figs. 1 and 3A of Stumpf disclose the magnetic brake which comprise a plurality of magnets 23, 25 – see Stumpf, Figs. 1 and 3A; col. 3, lines 43-49 and col. 4, lines 29-46).
For claim 11, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system claim 7, wherein the plurality of magnets are arranged in groups (Fig. 1 of Stumpf discloses the plurality of magnets 23, 25 which is silent for being arranged in groups. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the plurality of magnets arranged in groups, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Furthermore, arranging a plurality of magnet brakes in groups offers enhanced, improved redundancy for safety.
Claim 4, as best understand, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Southgate et al. (hereinafter Southgate, US 2015/0107852 A1) in view of Frazier et al. (hereinafter Frazier, US 2016/0115753 a1) and Stumpf (US 5,444,318 A), further in view of Wilson et al. (hereinafter Wilson, US 2004/0020709 A1)
For claim 4, Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the braking system of claim 1, wherein the electronic control circuit comprises a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) mounted within the power control module (Fig. 1 od Southgate discloses the electronic control circuit 20 which comprises a Printed Circuit Board 100 mounted within the power control module 10 – see Southgate, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0058] and [0060].
Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf disclose the Printed Circuit Board which is silent for reversing the polarity of the electrical supply from the battery pack to the electrical motor such that the motor can be operated in the reverse direction to rotate the output of the electrical motor in a reverse direction as well as a forwards direction.
However, Wilson discloses Printed Circuit Board which reverses the polarity of the electrical supply from the battery pack to the electrical motor such that the motor can be operated in the reverse direction to rotate the output of the electrical motor in a reverse direction as well as a forwards direction (Fig. 4 of Wilson discloses the electronic control circuit 216 including voltage converter 330 which reverses the polarity of the electrical supply from the battery pack to the electrical motor such that the motor 218 can be operated in the reverse direction to rotate the output of the electrical motor 218 in a reverse direction as well as a forwards direction – see Wilson, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0045]-0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Southgate in view of Frazier, further in view of Stumpf to incorporate teaching of Wilson for purpose of providing crucial versatility and eliminating the need to manually reverse mechanisms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, EDUARDO COLON-SANTANA can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights