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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the term “attachment feature” has been deleted from the claims. Furthermore, it is noted that the replacement term “plurality of mounting holes” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f). The claims are treated under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 0,984,141 (hereinafter “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 1 Johnson discloses a sheave assembly comprising:
a housing (1/2) with a plurality of mounting holes (5) for attaching the sheave assembly to an external mounting point (see page 1 lines 49-51), and
a sheave wheel (6) mounted to the housing (1/2) for rotation relative to the housing (1/2);
wherein the housing (1/2) comprises a first housing plate (1) comprising (being) a first flange (1) and a second housing plate (2) comprising (being) a second flange (2), the first flange (1) and the second flange (2) extending radially (at 3/4) past a periphery of the sheave wheel (6) so as to define a guide channel (5) aligned with the sheave wheel (6),
wherein the pair of flanges (1/2) extend substantially entirely about the circumference of the sheave wheel (6) (e.g. see figs. 2-3),
wherein the first housing plate (1) and the second housing plate (2) are attached to each other only at a location radially inward of the sheave wheel (6),
and wherein the plurality of mounting holes (5) are formed on the first flange (1) and the second flange (2) radially outward of the sheave wheel (6).
Regarding claim 4 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the plurality of mounting holes (5) are distributed about (on) the entirety of the circumference of the housing (1/2) (i.e. there are no mounting holes anywhere else. It is noted that Applicant’s disclosure has portions of the circumference without mounting holes therethrough).
Regarding claim 5 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the housing (1/2) comprises a central opening (14) located radially inwards of the sheave wheel (6).
Regarding claim 9 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein a recess is defined between the first housing plate (1) and the second housing plate (2), and wherein the sheave wheel (6) is rotatably mounted in the recess (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the sheave wheel (6) comprises a groove (18) extending about a circumferential surface of the sheave wheel (6).
Regarding claim 13 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the guide channel (5) has a width (i.e. width at the bottom of 5) that is substantially the same as a width of the groove (18).
Regarding claim 18 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the sheave assembly is (could be considered, under the broadest reasonable interpretation) a wireline sheave assembly or a slickline sheave assembly.
Regarding claim 19 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses a wireline/slickline rig (i.e. the sheave is part of a larger system, which could be considered a “rig,” see page 1 lines 14-16).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson.
Regarding claim 2 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the guide channel (5) comprises a width between the pair of flanges (1/2), and a depth between an outer periphery (at 3/4) of the flanges (1/2) and the sheave wheel (6). Johnson fails to teach wherein the depth is at least 5 times greater than the width. This appears to represent no more than ordinary design choice, as those of ordinary skill are well-versed in common sizing decisions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the channel of any height, including that claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide sufficient space between the block anchor and the pulley.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of US 2008/0067482 A1 (hereinafter “Carlson”).
Regarding claim 12 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the groove (Johnson 18) has a depth and a width, and wherein the depth of the groove (18) is [at less than the width] of the groove (18). Johnson fails to teach the depth of the groove being at least two times the width thereof. Carlson teaches a sheave wheel in a housing similar to Johnson. Carlson further teaches wherein a line-guiding groove (94; see fig. 2) of the pulley is at least twice as deep as it is wide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove of Johnson deeper, as taught by Carlson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to aid Johnson in engaging the wirelines set forth in Carlson (see Carlson, par. 4-7).
Claim 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0306749 (hereinafter "Van Der Ende") in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 20 Johnson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses the sheave assembly (fig. 1) is mountable (capable of being mounted; i.e. this is a functional recitation, and element 5 allows for mounting) as either an upper or lower pulley via an upper bracket. Van Der Ende teaches a slickline sheave assemblies (27/29), similar to Johnson, in use with a wireline/slickline rig (fig. 1; see par. 177). Van Der Ende further teaches first (29) and second (27) sheave assemblies mountable as upper and lower pulleys. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sheave assembly of Johnson as the sheaves in Van Der Ende with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to guide the line of Van Der Ende.
Regarding claim 21 modified Johnson teaches the above assembly, and further teaches a stuffing box (at Van Der Ende 24; see 179), and wherein the upper bracket (unshown attachment of 29 in Van Der Ende) attaches to the plurality of mounting holes (Johnson 5) of the first sheave assembly (Van Der Ende 29 as modified per Johnson) and (at least indirectly) to a stuffing box (at Van Der Ende 24; see 179).
Regarding claim 22 modified Johnson teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the lower bracket (unshown attachment of 27 in Van Der Ende) attaches to the plurality of mounting holes (Johnson 5) of the second sheave assembly (Van Der Ende 27 as modified per Johnson) and (at least indirectly) to an anchor point ().
Regarding claim 23 Johnson discloses the above sheave assembly (see claim 1 above). Johnson fails to teach the particulars of claim 23. Van Der Ende teaches a wireline/slickline load measurement assembly comprising: a first sheave assembly (27), a second sheave assembly (29), and a sensor attachment comprising a load sensor (33), the sensor attachment (33) being connected (at least indirectly) to attachment points of the first and second sheave assemblies (27/29) such that during use a wireline/slickline (6) can be wrapped around both of the first and second sheave wheels (27/29) and the load sensor (33) is operable to detect a tension (par. 180) in the wireline/slickline (6). Van Der Ende fails to teach the specifics of claim 1. Johnson teaches the sheave assembly as per claim 1, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sheave assembly of Johnson as the sheaves in Van Der Ende with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to guide the line of Van Der Ende.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of US 3,687,393 (hereinafter “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 14 Johnson discloses a sheave assembly comprising:
a housing (1/2) with a plurality of mounting holes (5) for attaching the sheave assembly to an external mounting point (see page 1 lines 49-51),
a rolling bearing (7) mounted on the housing (1/2), and
a sheave wheel (6) mounted to the rolling bearing (7) for rotation relative to the housing (1/2);
wherein the sheave wheel (6) comprises a bearing surface (18) on which a line can be borne during use, wherein the housing (1/2) comprises a support surface (outer periphery of 10) on which the rolling bearing (7) is received; and
wherein a ratio of a diameter (D1; see annotated fig. below) of the support surface (outer periphery of 10) of the housing (1/2) to a diameter (D2) of the bearing surface (18) of the sheave wheel (6) [appears to be around 0.50].
PNG
media_image1.png
400
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Johnson fails to teach a ratio of at least 0.75. This appears to represent routine sizing in view of Wilson. Wilson teaches a sheave having a bearing surface (B, see annotated fig. 3 below) for winding a line, and a support surface (S) on which a rolling bearing (22) is received. Wilson further teaches the ratio of a diameter (D3; see annotated fig. below) of the support surface (S) to a diameter (D4) of the bearing surface (B) of the sheave wheel is at least 0.75.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pulley and hub of the ratio shown in Wilson with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to increase the amount of lubrication fitted within the sheave of Johnson (as at Jonson 14).
Regarding claim 15 modified Johnson teaches the above assembly, and further teaches a ratio of the distance (D5, see annotated fig. of Johnson below) between the support surface (Johnson, outer periphery of 10) and the plurality of mounting holes (Johnson 5) to a peripheral diameter (D6) of the housing (Johnson 1/2) is less than about 0.50.
PNG
media_image3.png
605
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/N.L.A/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights