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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 4/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species listed do not define mutually exclusive characteristics. This is found persuasive because the prior art found and applied below reads on the Species claims that would have been withdrawn.
The requirement is hereby withdrawn.
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) 1-6, 8, 11-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 9506318 to Brunet.
Regarding claim 1, Brunet discloses a vibratory tool for use in a subterranean well, the vibratory tool comprising: an outer housing 52; an insert 78/80 configured to produce vibrations in a tubular string in the well; and a release member 64/90 that releasably secures the insert in the outer housing (figs. 2-8).
Regarding claim 2, the vibratory tool of claim 1, in which the release member comprises a shear member 90 (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, the vibratory tool of claim 2, in which the shear member extends through a release sleeve 64 secured between the insert and the outer housing (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the vibratory tool of claim 1, in which the release member comprises a release sleeve 64 secured between the insert and the outer housing (fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5-6, the vibratory tool of claim 4, in which the release sleeve is configured to part in response to a predetermined pressure differential created across a plug 108 engaged with the insert (fig. 8; col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 35).
Regarding claim 8, the vibratory tool of claim 1, in which the insert comprises a fluidic device (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 35).
Regarding claim 11, Brunet discloses a method for use with a subterranean well, the method comprising: connecting at least one vibratory tool in a tubular string, the vibratory tool including an insert 78/80 releasably secured in an outer housing 52; positioning the tubular string in the well (figs. 1-5); then releasing the insert from the outer housing in the well; and displacing the insert through the tubular string (fig. 8; col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 35).
Regarding claims 12-13, the method of claim 11, in which the releasing comprises creating a predetermined pressure differential across a plug engaged with the insert (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 35).
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 13, further comprising displacing cement through the tubular string uphole of the plug (fig. 8 shows that the cement has been displaced through the string and is in the annulus uphole of the plug).
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 11, in which the releasing further comprises shearing a release member 90 of the vibratory tool (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 11, in which the releasing further comprises parting a release sleeve 64 secured between the insert and the outer housing (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 11, in which the releasing further comprises deploying a plugging material into the tubular string uphole of the vibratory tool (fig. 6 shows cement 110 uphole of the tool).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 11, in which the connecting comprises connecting multiple vibratory tools in the tubular string, and in which the releasing comprises releasing the insert of each of the vibratory tools from the respective outer housing of each of the vibratory tools (fig. 9 and the associated description in col. 6 discloses multiple tools and multiple releases).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunet in view of US 20210047894 to Robertson et al.
Brunet teaches the release sleeve 64 from the vibratory tool of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. However, it is not explicitly taught that the release sleeve is configured to degrade in the well.
Robertson teaches a downhole release member 36 for a similar purpose to that of Brunet. It is further taught that the member is configured to degrade in the well (paragraph 0026). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a degradable release member as taught by Robertson as the material for the release sleeve of Brunet. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because well fluid degradable materials were well-known for lowering the shear force required to release the member, as taught by Robertson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE BOMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7026. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EST M-Th.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/SHANE BOMAR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3674