DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
A. In all claims, “horizon” and “layer” are considered as production zones in the formation.
B. The term “group” has been interpreted to include two or more.
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, (1) the parallel provision of the hydraulic fluid source for the horizon selection short section inputs (claim 2), (2) the eight oil passages being in two groups of four oil passages (claim 5), the second single-stage hydraulic cylinder left, middle, and right chambers, each separate and distinct from the other (claim 6), a telescoping cylinder assembly with the wall and first and second single-stage cylinders clearly delineated (claim 6), and the structure necessary to allow the shortening and lengthening of the piston rod (claim 6), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See the related Section 112(a) rejections. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the lines and the shorter numbers are not sufficiently dense and dark and are not uniformly thick and well-defined (all Figs.), reference numeral 111 must point to only one structure (Figs. 4 and 6-9), reference numerals 103, 104, and 112 improperly point to the same structure (Figs. 4 and 6-9), reference numerals 106 and 108 improperly point to the same chamber (Figs. 4 and 8), reference numerals 109 and 110 improperly point to the same chamber (Figs. 4, 7, and 9), and structures on Figs. 1-9 have improper solid shading. 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “through the group of hydraulic control valves” should be “through the use of the group of hydraulic control valves” (claim 1), “a group of high and low pressure output ports and an oil return port” should be “a group comprising high and low pressure output ports and an oil return port ” to clarify that the oil return port is in the group (claim 1), “and other eight oil passages” should be “and eight other oil passages (claim 5), “the wall” should be “a wall” (claim 6), “the piston rod” should be “a piston rod” (claim 6), “by setting” and “by controlling” should be “setting” and “controlling”, respectively, in order to have recited steps in a method claim (claim 7), “pipeline, different high” should be “pipeline, such that different high” (claim 8), “flow control valve” should be “flow control sleeve” (claim 9), and “needed; before” should be “needed; and further wherein, before” (claim 10). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 This claim recites “an output oil return passage” and “eight oil passages”, the eight oil passages being in two groups of four oil passages. However, the specification and drawings only describe four oil passages (94,95,96,97) and four oil return passages (98,99,100,101). Accordingly, nothing in the specification and drawings support the eight oil passages in two groups.
Claim 6 This claim recites a second single-stage hydraulic cylinder left, middle, and right chambers. However, the associated reference numbers (108,109,110) are shown on all sleeve figures, e.g., Fig. 4, to identify only two chambers, i.e., numbers 109 and 110 identify the same chamber. Accordingly, nothing in the specification nor the drawings describes an actual third chamber.
Claim 6 This claim recites separate first and second single stage cylinders and it appears in claim 6 that they must telescope. However, associated reference numbers (103,104) are shown only with respect to a uniform, integral structure on all sleeve figures, e.g., Fig. 4, such structure also being numbered 112 and having the radial holes, which shows that the structure is actually the “wall” of this claim 6.
Claim 6 Nothing in the specification nor the drawings describes an actual two cylinder, telescoping structure. Additionally, this claim recites a second single-stage cylinder piston (identified as structure 111 in the specification). However, the associated reference number is shown for two distinct structures that move separately with respect to each other on all sleeve figures, e.g., Fig. 4. Accordingly, nothing in the specification nor the drawings adequately describes an actual second single-stage cylinder piston. The examiner suggests that the applicant intended that the structure marked with the rightmost 111 is actually the telescoping second stage cylinder and should be numbered 104. This may be supported by application paragraph [0115] “the cylinder body of the second single-stage cylinder is connected to the piston rod of the first single-stage cylinder” and paragraph [0119] “the piston rod end of the two-stage telescopic cylinder is brought to different positions to block or open part or all of the radial holes”, which appear to be consistent with claims 6 and 9 herein, respectively. In any case the piston rod should have a reference number.
Claim 6 Comparing the views of Figs. 6-9, it is clear that the performance of the sleeve requires that the piston rod (unnumbered) be of varying lengths. Nothing the in specification nor drawings describes how this can be done.
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 1-10 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 The term "short" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested that the term be deleted, in that the examiner has not assigned any patentable weight thereto. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 It is unclear what is intended by “the input mode” in the last sub-paragraph and there is insufficient antecedent basis for “input mode”. If this refers to varying and/or alternating the hydraulic fluid supply/pressure to the horizon selection short section’s hydraulic input ports, then the claim should specifically make the association and set forth the details of how the control of the opening and closing of the group of the high and low pressure output ports and the oil return port is achieved by utilizing such input ports. It is also unclear if the “input mode” refers to a manner of using “the second group of hydraulic control valves and the horizon selection short section” in this last portion of the last sub-paragraph, or whether only “pressurization adjustment” refers to using “the second group of hydraulic control valves and the horizon selection short section”. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 Assuming the sleeve (mentioned only in the preamble) is considered as a limitation, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are where the sleeve is positioned with respect to the two “sections” and how the sleeve interacts with any components of either of the two “sections”. See the related claim interpretation with regard to the sleeve and the claim 1 preamble. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 It is unclear whether a “layer” is a “horizon”. If so, then the same designation should be used in both claim 1 and claim 2. The examiner has assumed both refer to a production zone of the formation. It is also unclear whether a single combination of the “horizon selection short section” and the “high and low pressure selection short section” is used for a single layer (the examiner’s interpretation) or multiple layers. It is also unclear what is meant by “connected in parallel”. Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2.
Claim 3 This claim recites “a six-layer control system” and depends from claim 2 which recites “a multi-layer control system”, making it unclear whether an additional control system is provided. Changing “wherein the hydraulic system comprises a six-layer control system” to “wherein the number of layers is six” will overcome this rejection. Claim 5 depends from claim 3.
Claim 4 This claim recites the normally open hydraulic control one-way valves and the normally closed hydraulic control one-way valves as being within the “first group of hydraulic control valves” recited in claim 1. However, several later references are present which recite “a normally open hydraulic control one-way valve” and “a normally closed hydraulic control one-way valve”, which makes it unclear whether additional valves, that are not part of the “first group” are required. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the two usages of “led out”, such usages, along with the “are mutually controlled” passages, also creating grammatical irregularity and uncertainty. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two ends”. In the following, the examiner suggests changes that, in part, will overcome these rejections, but no attempt has been made by the examiner to clarify what is meant by “mutually controlled”, in that it is unclear to the examiner what is being claimed. Note that additions to the specification will likely be required to provide antecedent basis in the specification for many of the changes below and whatever changes are forthcoming regarding the “mutually controlled” issue.
4.The hydraulic system for downhole sleeve horizon selection and opening control according to claim 2, wherein the horizon selection short section further comprises three oil passages, each oil passage having a first end provided with a first, second, and third of the hydraulic input ports, respectively, and each oil passage having a second end provided with a first, second, and third of the hydraulic output ports, respectively, the first group of hydraulic control valves comprises two normally open hydraulic control one-way valves and four normally closed hydraulic control one- way valves, second of the normally open hydraulic control one-way valves and a second of the normally closed hydraulic control one-way valves are sequentially provided on the first oil passage, a first and a fourth of the valves are sequentially provided on the second oil passage, and a third of the normally closed hydraulic control one-way valves is provided on the third oil passage, and further wherein the first of the [[a]]normally open hydraulic control one-way valves is positioned between, and in fluid communication with, the second normally closed hydraulic control one-way valve and hydraulic input port of the second oil passage and the second of the normally open hydraulic control one-way valves on the first oil passage, the first of the normally open hydraulic control one-way and the second of the normally open hydraulic control one-way valves being further wherein, the four normally closed hydraulic control one-way valves are mutually controlled, and finally, the hydraulic outlet ports comprise five hydraulic output ports, each of which lead out of the horizon selection short section.
Claim 5 It is unclear what is meant by two groups “of symmetrical parallel oil passages”.
Claim 5 The claim is grammatically indiscernible beginning with “one-way valve” in the fifth line.
Claim 5 This claim recites that the second group of hydraulic control valves comprises two normally open hydraulic control one-way valves and six normally closed hydraulic control one-way valves” and then recites “one-way valve is provided on each oil passage” making it unclear whether additional one-way valves, other than those in the “group”, are required. Similarly, this claim has additional recitations of “normally open hydraulic control one-way valves”, “normally closed hydraulic control one-way valves”, and “normally closed hydraulic valves”, again making it unclear if additional one-way valves, other than those in the “group”, are required. Additionally, the claim recites “either oil passages” and then recites “four oil passages”, making it unclear whether additional oil passages are required.
Claim 5 It is unclear what is meant by “mutually controlled” and, also, whether both the “two oil passages” and “the other two oil passages” are mutually controlled or just “the other two oil passages”.
Claim 6 This claim recites “downhole sleeve” in the preamble, then “a sleeve” in the third line, making it unclear whether an additional sleeve is required. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “two-stage”, in that, the cylinder assembly has several moving parts movable to more than two positions at any of more than two times. Similarly, it is unclear what is meant by “single-stage”.
Claim 7 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the input port”, in that, this claim depends from claim 1 which recites “a group of hydraulic input ports” and no single hydraulic input port has been previously recited. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the corresponding hydraulic pipeline”, and it is also unclear which pipeline is being recited. Claim 8 depends from claim 7.
Claim 7 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “sections”, “horizons”, and “sleeves”. Incorporating the requirements of claim 2 and claim 6 will overcome this rejection. Claim 8 depends from claim 7.
Claim 8 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the output port”, in that, this claim depends from claim 1 which recites “a group of hydraulic output ports” and no single hydraulic output port has been previously recited.
Claim 8 There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two-stage hydraulic telescopic sleeve”. Incorporating the requirements of claim 6 will overcome this rejection.
Claim 8 This claim uses the word "can" to describe the function of elements within the claim. The word "can" creates a lack of clarity as whether the function following such word is a requirement of the invention.
Claim 8 It is unclear whether “different piston cylinders” refers to just two cylinders in one sleeve or in multiple sleeves. If the latter, then there is insufficient antecedent basis, but this would be overcome by incorporating the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 8 It is unclear what “flow outlets” are. The examiner assumes each outlet is an exposed radial hole.
Claim 9 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “pistons”, “holes”, and “cylinders”. Incorporating the requirements of claim 6 will overcome this rejection. Claim 10 depends from claim 9.
Claim 10 The term "as needed" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the input ports” in that claim 1 recites “a group of hydraulic input ports” and no particular plurality of hydraulic input ports from such group has been previously recited. Similarly, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the input port” in that claim 1 recites “a group of hydraulic input ports” and no single hydraulic input port from such group has been previously recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xue et al. (CN111663920 – the primary reference D1 in both PCT/CN2022/080894 and CN202111461911) discloses a control method of three-pipeline control six-layer position sliding sleeve (Fig. 2). Zhang et al. (CN109356899) discloses a three-line control six-layer sliding sleeve downhole hydraulic system (Fig. 10). Shen et al. (CN102031953) discloses a downhole position selecting hydraulic decoding method and device (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676