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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “100”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not presented in narrative form and appears to be a restatement of the claims. 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).
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 (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 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) 1-2, 7, 10-15, 19, 21-22, 29-30, 32 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,700,788 (Langner).
As concerns claim 1, Langner discloses a drillstring anchor for reacting torque from a downhole portion of a drillstring to a wellbore, the drillstring anchor comprising[[:]]figure 3),[[;]]the multiple segments comprising a first segment and a second segment coupled to each other so as to permit relative longitudinal motion therebetween, wherein the drillstring anchor is configured to allow relative axial movement of the downhole portion of the drillstring and the drillstring anchor when the respective gripper of one or more of the multiple segments is gripping the wellbore. (3:28+).
As concerns claim 2, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the drillstring anchor comprises a drive mechanism 17/18 for advancing the first segment downhole relative to at least the second segment.
As concerns claim 7, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein the drillstring anchor and the downhole portion of the drillstring are compliantly couplable in the longitudinal direction so as to permit relative longitudinal motion of the downhole portion of the drillstring relative to the drillstring anchoras the grippers are actuated sequentially, see figure 3 and 1:60+).
As concerns claim 10, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein the first and second segments each have a range of travel in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the drillstring anchoras illustrated, see figure 3).
As concerns claim 11, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein the multiple segments comprise at least two sets of segments, wherein the grippers of each set of segments are configured to be actuated simultaneously (see, e.g., 1:60+, disclosing that the parts can be actuated sequentially or simultaneously).
As concerns claim 12, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein the drillstring anchor comprises at least one energy store and wherein each actuator is capable of being driven from one or more of the at least one energy store to cause the gripper to grip the wellbore (this is implicit, as the anchor is hydraulically actuated, and an energy store such as an accumulator or tank for storing hydraulic fluid would be a necessary element).
As concerns claim 13, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein, when the respective actuator of one or more segments of the multiple segments is driven to cause its respective gripper to grip the wellbore, the drillstring anchor is configured to restrict relative rotation between the drillstring and the wellbore (see figure 3, this would of course occur when the gripper is actuated).
As concerns claim 14, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein each gripper is configured to exert an outward force on the wellbore relative to the longitudinal axis of the drillstring anchor (figure 3).
As concerns claim 15, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein each gripper is capable of gripping the wellbore independently of whether drilling fluid is flowing through the drillstring (this is also implicit, in as much as the hydraulic fluid may be supplied through the pipe, see 3:25).
As concerns claim 19, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 1,wherein one or more of the grippers and/or actuators comprises a hydraulic piston (3:28+).
As concerns claim 21, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in figure 3 and 3:28+).
As concerns claim 22, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in 3:28+).
As concerns claim 29, Langner discloses drillstring anchor for reacting torque from a downhole portion of a drillstring to a wellbore, the drillstring anchor comprising:and wherein the drillstring anchor3:28+).
As concerns claim 30, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in claim 29, wherein, when the actuator is driven to cause the gripper to grip the wellbore, the drillstring anchor is configured to restrict relative rotation between the drillstring and the wellbore (see figure 3, this would of course occur when the gripper is actuated).
As concerns claim 32, Langner discloses the drillstring anchor as claimed in this is also implicit, in as much as the hydraulic fluid may be supplied through the pipe, see 3:25).
As concerns claim 44, Langner discloses a method of reacting torque to a wellbore, the method comprising: providing a drillstring anchor as claimed in figure 3); and causing the respective gripper 13/14 of at least one of the first and second segments to grip the wellbore to react torque from the drillstring to the wellbore.
As concerns claim 45, Langner discloses the method as claimed in claim 44, the method further comprising: operating a motor 8 on the drillstring distally of the drillstring anchor to provide rotational drive to a drill bit 7; and causing one or more grippers 13/14 to grip the wellbore to react torque transferred from the drill bit to the drillstring to the wellbore.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 23 and 24 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claims, but appear to contain allowable subject matter, as the particular limitations with respect to the interlinking drive connector and the longitudinal ranges of travel relative to the housing and triggering the actuators in response to the location of the other segments, as well as releasing one of the first or second grippers before the other gripper reaches a limit of its range of travel as the other gripper continues to grip the wellbore are not disclosed, taught or suggested by the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would not have been motivated to make the specific modifications to attain the drillstring anchor of claims 23 and 24 based on the disclosure of Langner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2007/0204987 A1 (Carro) discloses a device for anchoring a casing into a well bore, the device comprising an anchor body mounted in a tool string and a plurality of radially expanding fingers that are mounted in a fingers assembly in a retracted position and they move to an extending position wherein the fingers extend radially from the tool string for anchor against the well bore wall.
US 2011/0127046 A1 (Aguirre et al.) discloses a tractor configured for grip locking during advancement to avoid slippage, particularly in open-hole wells. The tractor is equipped with a grip lock mechanism for independently locking an anchor grip in a radially outward direction. This locking occurs sequentially in advance of the power stroke of a reciprocating drive piston associated with the anchor. Thus, radial outward expansion and gripping are ensured at the time pulling of a load in an axial downhole direction is pursued.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights