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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
With the response, applicant submits that the claims are not anticipated by US 2010/001870 A1 (Moriarty et al.), or rendered obvious by the combination of Moriarty et al. and US 5,230,387 (Waters et al.). The examiner disagrees.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 14, applicant submits that the reference, Waters et al., specifically describes that the magnetic field sensors not change in orientation, therefore it would not have been obvious to activate an orienting device to rotate the ranging equipment and then drill an offset well. This is not persuasive.
First, the examiner notes that the combination tool described by Waters et al. is an orienting tool as reasonably interpreted here. At 4:28+, Waters et al. states, ”advantages to the combination tool are capabilities not found presently in the industry. The magnetic ranging orientation system has a resolution allowing directional drilling accuracy. All directional drilling operations require some method of orienting the downhole tool and the high quality, magnetic sensors in the combination tool provide accurate information for orienting the tool.“ At 5:5+, Waters et al. states “It is highly desirable and advantageous to be able to combine the operations which provide steering information with measurements concerning the range and direction to a subterranean body as well as wellbore trajectories and formation evaluation”. Thus, as shown by Waters et al., it would indeed be obvious to the skilled person to combine the tool of Waters et al. with the tool assembly of Moriarty et al. to not only perform the orienting operation while drilling, but also to ensure that the sensors array is maintained in the proper orientation.
It is also submitted that the conductors of Moriarty et al. do not extend through the orienter, and because the reference uses a wireless communication system. Again, this is not persuasive. While Moriarty et al. describes a wireless system, the system 70 is disclosed as additional to the conductors of Moriarty et al., which states, at 0018, “The coiled tubing 32 and wireline 46 are connected to orienter 36 via a coiled tubing wireline head 50. In this embodiment, wireline 46 may comprise a single or multi-conductor cable to provide power to orienter 36 while also providing high data rate telemetry between the surface and coiled tubing bottom hole assembly 34”.
Thus, the conductors not only extend through the orienter 36, but they also extend from the cable head to the sensor packages, as the sensors are contained within the orienter. All of the rejections will, accordingly, be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0018770 A1 (Moriarty et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Moriarty et al. discloses a bottom hole assembly for use with a subterranean well, the bottom hole assembly comprising: a cable head 50 configured to connect the bottom hole assembly to a cable 46 in a coiled tubing 32; multiple sensor packages (system 64), each of the sensor packages being configured to measure respective parameters downhole (see 0019); an electrical orienter 36 configured to rotate the sensor packages downhole; and multiple conductors (see, 0018, “wireline 46 may comprise a single or multi-conductor cable”), each of the conductors extending [[between]] from the cable head 50 [[and]] to the sensor packages 64 via the electrical orienter (36, in as much as the sensors are contained within the orienter 36, see figure 2).
As concerns claim 2, Moriarty et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, in which the electrical
orienter is connected uphole of the sensor packages (figure 2).
As concerns claim 11, Moriarty et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, in which the electrical
orienter comprises a motor 54 having a conductive chassis, and a switch 62 that selectively connects the chassis to
electrical ground via one of the conductors (0019, the electronics 62 that control the motor are equivalent).
As concerns claim 23, Moriarty et al. discloses an electrical orienter 36 for use in a subterranean well, the electrical orienter comprising: an electric motor 54 configured to rotate a first section of the electrical orienter relative to a second section of the electrical orienter (the motor rotates the shaft, which is a part of the orienter); a flow path extending completely longitudinally through the electrical orienter (figure 3 at least); and multiple conductors extending completely longitudinally through the electrical orienter (wireline 46 may be a multi- conductor cable, see 0018 at least, “The coiled tubing 32 and wireline 46 are connected to orienter 36 via a coiled tubing wireline head 50. In this embodiment, wireline 46 may comprise a single or multi-conductor cable to provide power to orienter 36 while also providing high data rate telemetry between the surface and coiled tubing bottom hole assembly 34”).
As concerns claim 24, Moriarty et al. discloses the electrical orienter 36 of claim 23, in which all of the multiple conductors are isolated from an outer housing of the electrical orienter (figure 2 and figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, 12-20, 22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriarty et al. in view of US 5,230,387 (Waters et al.).
As concerns claim 3, Moriarty et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, but lacks to expressly disclose the bottom hole assembly in which the sensor packages comprise ranging equipment, and in which the electrical orienter 36 is configured to rotate the ranging equipment. Waters et al. discloses a bottom hole assembly having a sensor package comprising ranging equipment (combination tool 100 is a ranging tool, see at least 1:10+) and an orienter 17 configured to rotate the ranging equipment (as 17 has an orienting key 18, thus equivalent to an "orienter").
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the ranging equipment into the BHA with a reasonable expectation of success, as this would allow the assembly to be used in magnetic ranging operations as well as measuring while drilling and other operations.
As concerns claim 8, Waters et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, further comprising a
check valve 19 connected between the sensor packages and a fluid motor 21.
As concerns claim 9, Waters et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 8, in which the check valve
is configured to prevent fluid flow through a flow path from the fluid motor to the sensor packages (as the function
of a check valve is to prevent flow back through a flow path).
As concerns claim 10, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a
known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair &
Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
As concerns claim 12, Moriarty et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, in which the
electrical orienter comprises an electronics package, and the electronics package is configured to selectively
operate the switch based on an activation state of the sensor packages (the switch and electronics package at 62
could obviously be capable of being configured to disconnect or connect the motor at any time).
As concerns claim 13, Moriarty et al. discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 12, in which the
electronics package is further configured to disconnect the motor chassis from electrical ground when at least one
of the sensor packages is activated (Id.).
As concerns claim 14, Moriarty et al. discloses a method for use in a subterranean well, the method
comprising: connecting a bottom hole assembly 34 to a coiled tubing 32, the bottom hole assembly comprising an
electrical orienter 36, a sensor package 82, a fluid motor 42 and a drill bit 40; deploying the coiled tubing and the
bottom hole assembly into the well (figure 3); activating the electrical orienter 36 to rotate the equipment; but
lacks to expressly disclose the sensor package comprising ranging equipment and then drilling an offset wellbore
toward a target wellbore located using the ranging equipment.
Waters et al. discloses a method for use in a subterranean well, comprising a sensor package including
ranging equipment (combination tool 100 is a ranging tool) and then drilling an offset wellbore 14 toward a target
wellbore 10 located using the ranging equipment (figure 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the ranging
equipment into the BHA with a reasonable expectation of success, as this would allow the assembly to be used in
magnetic ranging operations as well as measuring while drilling and other operations.
As concerns claim 15, Moriarty et al. discloses the method of claim 14, in which the drilling comprises
flowing a fluid through a flow path extending through the electrical orienter, the sensor package, the fluid motor,
and the drill bit (see figure 3, figure 4).
As concerns claim 16, Moriarty et al. discloses the method of claim 14, in which the electrical orienter 36
comprises an electric motor 54, and further comprising disconnecting the electric motor from electrical ground
(the 62 controller for the motor would obviously be capable of this function).
As concerns claims 17-18, the controlling electronics 62 of Moriarty et al. could obviously be configured to
perform the disconnecting at any time during the operation.
As concerns claim 19, Waters et al. discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising connecting a
check valve between the fluid motor and the electrical orienter in the bottom hole assembly (Waters et al.
discloses a check valve at 19).
As concerns claim 20, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a
known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair &
Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
As concerns claim 22, Moriarty et al. discloses the method of claim 14, in which the activating and the
drilling are performed in a single trip of the bottom hole assembly into the well (as shown).
As concerns claim 25, Moriarty et al. discloses the electrical orienter of claim 23, further comprising a
switch connected between one of the conductors and a conductive chassis of the electric motor (motor control
electronics 62 are equivalent).
As concerns claim 26, Moriarty et al. discloses the electrical orienter of claim 25, further comprising an
electronics package configured to activate the switch to disconnect the motor chassis from the one of the
conductors when a sensor package is activated (motor controller 62 would obviously be capable of disconnecting
the motor at any time in the operation).
Claim(s) 7, 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moriarty et
al., and further in view of US 2019/0071929 A1 (Zheng et al.).
As concerns claims 7, 21 and 27, the combination lacks to disclose the orienter having a torque weak
point configured to fail at a predetermined torque.
Zheng et al. discloses a logging operation having a tool with a torque weak point 32 configured to fail at a
predetermined torque.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the torque weak
point into the orienter with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of allowing an
operator to control the disconnection operation while preventing accidental over-torquing and damage to the
related equipment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 were objected to and identified as containing allowable subject matter in a previous Office action.
Conclusion
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