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 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 0071vibration 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. 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 if dampener is a accumulator).
Referring to claim 22, Schicker disclose 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) 16-19,22,29,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Haugland 20190316443 .
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. Haugland teaches a vibration dampener (shock absorber 150) arranged in a longitudinal position uphole ( located belong a motor) 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. 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 Haugland with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the motor from uphole vibrations.
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 18, Kartha as modified, does not disclose the vibration- generator provides oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz However, Kartha does disclose the vibration generator may have particular impact frequency for a particular formation (see paragraph 0042). Moreover, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool string disclosed by Kartha, as modified by Haugland to have the vibration generator provide oscillating vibration force at a frequency of more than 50 Hz with a reasonable expectation of success in order to a tool has a sufficient frequency to drill in a particular formation.
Referring to claim 19, Haugland discloses the vibration dampener (150) is arranged in a longitudinal position between an operational tool (101) and a part ( at 260).
Referring to claim 22, Kartha disclose 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).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Haugland 20190316443, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Dismukes 4646856.
Referring to claim 20, Kartha , as modified by Haugland does not disclose the vibration dampener is configured to be stationary during operation. Dismukes teaches a vibration dampener (38) that is stationary during use. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the tool string disclosed by Kartha as modify by Haugland to have the vibration dampener is configured to be stationary during operation in view of the teachings of Dismukes with a reasonable expectation of success as this is merely a simple substitution of one type of vibration dampening for another type.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Haugland 20190316443, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Khaparde 20160230479
Referring to claim 21, Kartha , as modified by Haugland, does not disclose vibration dampener is configured to rotate relative to the first part during operation. Khaparde teaches a shock absorber (200) configured to rotate with a motor ( see paragraph 0019 rotate with motor 22) which absorb both axial and torsional shock loads. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool string disclosed by Kartha, as modified by Haugland to have vibration damper is configured to rotate relative to the first part during operation in view of the teachings of Khaparde with a reasonable expectation of success in order to absorb both axial and torsional shock loads.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartha et al. 20180163474 in view of Haugland 20190316443, as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Cullen et al. 3669199.
Referring to claim 24, Kartha, as modified by Haugland, 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 modify the system disclosed by Kartha, as modified by Haugland, to have a gearing unit between the motor and the bit in view of the teachings of Cullen 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).
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 teaches 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-22 and 24-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672