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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/14/26 has been entered.
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(s) 16,17,19,20,22,26,27,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schicker et al. 20140196952 in view of Kartha et al. 20180163474 .
Referring to claim 16, Schicker discloses (see fig. 7) a wireline intervention tool string for operating in a well having a longitudinal axis, a top and a bottom, comprising: a tool housing ( housing shown in figure 7) having a longitudinal tool axis, a first part ( where motor 10 is located) connected to a wireline (11) and configured to face the top of the well, an operational tool (9) configured to rotate relative to the first part during a machining operation of hard materials down the well ( tool can be drilling bit or milling tool , see paragraph 0042), a drive (10) arranged in the first part and configured to provide rotational force to the operational tool, the drive being powered via the wireline, and a vibration generator (8) configured to provide a vibration force to the operational tool to enhance the machining operation of the operational tool (see paragraph 0071 vibration can go to downhole tooling), wherein the wireline intervention tool string further comprises a vibration-dampener (see paragraph 0037, uphole vibration can be dampened) arranged in a longitudinal position uphole relative to the operational tool and configured to prevent or attenuate vibrations generated by the vibration generator from damaging tool sections that are uphole to the operational tool and/or to prevent or attenuate the vibration generated by the vibration generator from releasing tool sections from other tool sections of the wireline intervention tool string, at least in the first part. Schicker does not disclose the first part comprising an anchoring section and being configured to be rotationally stationary during operation. Kartha teaches a wireline tool with a first part comprising an anchoring section (17) and being configured to be rotationally stationary during operation (see paragraph 0021). Karka further teaches the anchor counteracts the tendency of the tool to rotate during rotation of the drill bit (see paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Schicker in view of the teachings of Kartha with a reasonable amount of success in order to counteract the tendency of the tool to rotate during rotation of the drill bit.
Referring to claim 17, Schicker discloses the wireline intervention tool string comprises a second part ( section at 9 ) configured to face the bottom of the well, and the operational tool is arranged in the second part of the wireline intervention tool string, the operational tool comprising a bit for machining ( see paragraph 0042).
Referring to claim 19, Schicker discloses vibration dampener is arranged in a longitudinal position between the operational tool and the first part (see paragraph 0037 dampens vibration going uphole so would be between tool and a first section).
Referring to claim 20, Schicker discloses the vibration dampener is configured to remain stationary (see paragraph 0037 if dampener is an accumulator).
Referring to claim 22, Schicker discloses the drive (10) is configured to provide is configured to provide rotational force to the vibration generator (8) , where the vibration generator is configured to transform the rotational force into the vibration force in the longitudinal tool axis (see paragraph 0026).
Referring to claim 26, Schicker discloses the vibration generator provides oscillating vibration force in a direction that is parallel, coaxial and/or coincident to the longitudinal tool axis of the wireline intervention tool string and/or the longitudinal axis of the well (see paragraph 0026).
Referring to claim 27, Schicker discloses the vibration generator(8) is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration dampener ( see paragraph 0037 when uphole vibration is dampened) and the operational tool (9).
Referring to claim 29, Schicker discloses the vibration generator comprising a vibration transmission unit comprising a spring system ( see paragraph 0071).
Claim(s) 16, 17,19,21-22,29,30,33,34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Khaparde 20160230479.
Referring to claim 16, Kartha discloses (see fig. 1) a wireline intervention tool string for operating in a well having a longitudinal axis, a top and a bottom, comprising: a tool housing ( housing shown in figure 1) having a longitudinal tool axis, a first part ( at 17) connected to a wireline (13) and configured to face the top of the well , the first part comprising an anchoring section and being configured to be rotationally station during operation (see paragraph 0021), , an operational tool (19) configured to rotate relative to the first part during a machining operation of hard materials down the well, a drive (18) arranged in the first part and configured to provide rotational force to the operational tool, the drive being powered via the wireline (see paragraph 0028), and a vibration generator (100) configured to provide a vibration force to the operational tool to enhance the machining operation of the operational tool. Kartha does not disclose a vibration-dampener arranged in a longitudinal position uphole relative to the operational tool and configured to prevent or attenuate vibrations generated by the vibration generator from damaging tool sections that are uphole to the operational tool and/or to prevent or attenuate the vibration generated by the vibration generator from releasing tool sections from other tool sections of the wireline intervention tool string, at least in the first part. Khaparde teaches a vibration dampener (shock absorber 200) arranged in a longitudinal position uphole relative to an operational tool and configured to prevent or attenuate vibrations generated by a vibration generator from damaging tool sections that are uphole to the operational tool and/or to prevent or attenuate the vibration generated by the vibration generator from releasing tool sections from other tool sections of the wireline intervention tool string, at least in the first part (see paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have vibration dampener between the motor and the operational tool in view of the teachings of Khaparde with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the motor from vibrations that could travel uphole.
Referring to claim 17, Kartha discloses the wireline intervention tool string comprises a second part ( section at 19 ) configured to face the bottom of the well, and the operational tool is arranged in the second part of the wireline intervention tool string, the operational tool comprising a bit (19) for machining.
Referring to claim 19, Khaparde discloses the vibration dampener (100) is arranged in a longitudinal position between an operational tool (24) and a first part ( at 20).
Referring to claim 21, Khaparde discloses vibration dampener(100) is configured to rotate relative to the first part during operation (see paragraph 0019 will rotate with motor 22).
Referring to claim 22, Kartha discloses the drive (18) is configured to provide is configured to provide rotational force to the vibration generator (100) , where the vibration generator is configured to transform the rotational force into the vibration force in the longitudinal tool axis (see paragraph 0038-39).
Referring to claim 29, Kartha discloses the vibration generator (100) comprising a vibration transmission unit comprising a spring system (see fig. 5, at 122).
Referring to claim 30, Kartha discloses a downhole tool system comprising the wireline intervention tool string according to claim 16 and a driving section/downhole tractor (see paragraph 0085).
Referring to claim 33, Khaparde teaches the vibration dampener (100) is configured to rotate relative to a first part during operation (see paragraph 0019 will rotate with motor 22). Kartha discloses the vibration-generator (100) provides oscillating vibration force in a direction that is parallel, coaxial and/or coincident to the longitudinal tool axis of the wireline intervention tool string and/or the longitudinal axis of the well.
Referring to claim 34, Khaparde teaches the vibration dampener (100) is configured to rotate relative to a first part during operation (see paragraph 0019 will rotate with motor 22). Kartha, as modified, does not specifically disclose wherein the vibration-generator is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration-dampener and the operational tool. However, Khaparde teaches having locating a dampener to protect uphole equipment from downhole vibrations (see paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kartha to have the vibration-generator is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration-dampener and the operational tool in view of teachings of Khaparde in order to protect the motor from vibrations from the vibration generator that might travel uphole.
Claim(s) 18, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schicker et al. 20140196952 in view of Kartha et al. 20180163474 as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Wiercigroch 20140083772 (cited in 892 filed 7/1/25).
Referring to claims 18 and 31, Schicker, as modified, discloses the vibration generator provides oscillating vibration force in a direction that is parallel, coaxial and/or coincident to the longitudinal tool axis of the wireline intervention tool string and/or the longitudinal axis of the well (see paragraph 0026). Schicker does not disclose the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz. Wiercigroch teaches a tool with vibration generator that provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz in order to create a crack propagation zone for a range of different rock types (see paragraph 0097). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Schicker, as modified by Kartha, to have the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz in view of the teachings of Wiercigroch with a reasonable expectation of success in order to aid the drill bit in cutting through the formation.
Referring to claim 32, Schicker, as modified, discloses the vibration generator(8) is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration dampener ( see paragraph 0037 when uphole vibration is dampened) and the operational tool (9). Schicker does not disclose the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz. Wiercigroch teaches a tool with vibration generator that provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz in order to create a crack propagation zone for a range of different rock types (see paragraph 0097). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Schicker, as modified by Kartha, to have the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz in view of the teachings of Wiercigroch with a reasonable expectation of success in order to aid the drill bit in cutting through the formation.
Claim(s) 18, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Khaparde 20160230479, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Lundberg 20080135308.
Referring to claims 18 and 31, Kartha discloses the vibration generator (100) provides oscillating vibration force in a direction that is parallel, coaxial and/or coincident to the longitudinal tool axis of the wireline intervention tool string and/or the longitudinal axis of the well. Kartha does not disclose the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz. Lundberg teaches it is well known in the art for percussion drilling tool to have a frequency or more than 50 Hz (see paragraph 0006) . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Kartha, as modified by Khaparde, to have the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz in view of the teachings of Lundberg with a reasonable expectation of success it is well known in the art for percussion drilling tool to have a frequency or more than 50 Hz.
Referring to claim 32, Kartha does not specifically disclose the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz or specifically disclose wherein the vibration-generator is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration-dampener and the operational tool. Lundberg teaches it is well known in the art for percussion drilling tool to have a frequency or more than 50 Hz (see paragraph 0006). Khaparde teaches having locating a dampener to protect uphole equipment from downhole vibrations (see paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool disclosed by Kartha, to have the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz and the vibration-generator is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration-dampener and the operational tool. in view of the teachings of Lundberg and Khaparde with a reasonable expectation of success it is well known in the art for percussion drilling tool to have a frequency or more than 50 Hz and to protect the motor from vibrations from the vibration generator that might travel uphole.
Claim(s) 24-25 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Khaparde 20160230479, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Cullen et al. 3669199.
Referring to claim 24, Kartha, as modified, does not disclose a gearing unit. Cullen teaches teachings a gearing unit (see fig. 1, at G) between a motor and a bit in order which allow the torque developed by the motor to be multiplied and transferred to the bit as a slower speed (see col. 1, lines 55-64). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system disclosed by Kartha, as modified by Khaparde, to have a gearing unit between the motor and the bit and the vibration-generator is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration-dampener and the operational tool in view of the teachings of Cullen and Khaparde with a reasonable expectation of success in order which allow the torque developed by the motor to be multiplied and transferred to the bit as a slower speed.
Referring to claim 25, Cullen teaches the gearing unit (G) provides a first rotational speed to an operational tool (bit B).
Referring to claim 35, Kartha, as modified, does not disclose a gearing unit or specifically disclose wherein the vibration-generator is arranged in a longitudinal position between the vibration-dampener and the operational tool. Cullen teaches teachings a gearing unit (see fig. 1, at G) between a motor and a bit in order which allow the torque developed by the motor to be multiplied and transferred to the bit as a slower speed (see col. 1, lines 55-64). Khaparde teaches having locating a dampener to protect uphole equipment from downhole vibrations (see paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Kartha, to have a gearing unit between the motor and the bit in view of the teachings of Cullen and Khaparde with a reasonable expectation of success in order which allow the torque developed by the motor to be multiplied and transferred to the bit as a slower speed and to protect the motor from vibrations from the vibration generator that might travel uphole.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schicker et al. 20140196952 in view of Kartha et al. 20180163474, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Tanigushi et al. 5568448.
Referring to claim 28, Schicker, as modified, does not disclose vibration generator comprises a wave bearing or a magnetostrictive oscillator providing the vibration force. Tanigushi teaches that a magnetostrictive oscillator is a known type of vibration generator (see col. 14 lines 1-3). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Schicker, as modified, Kartha, to have a vibration generator comprises a magnetostrictive oscillator providing the vibration force in view of the teachings of Tanigushi with a reasonable expectation of success as this is a mere substitution of one type of vibration generator for another type.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closet prior art to Schicker et al. 20140196952 or Kartha et al. 20180163474 do not teach or suggest a second drive that is configured to provide rotational force to the vibration generator in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor would it be obvious to modify the references to include this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues there is no motivation to modify Schicker to include an anchor as taught by of Kartha. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kartha teaches the anchor help counteract the tendency of the tool to rotate while the bit rotates (see paragraph 0021).
The applicant argues concerning the rejection of Kartha in view of Haugland are moot as this rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to applicant's argument that the references are so different from each other and the claimed tool one of ordinary skill in the art would not come up with the solution of claim 16, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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.
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights