DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 4/15/2026, has been entered. Claims 25-30, 32-33, and 35-37, and 39 are pending with claims 1-24, 31 and 34 being previously canceled and claim 38 being currently cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 25-26, 28, 33, 35, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aumann et al. (US 20020033281) in view of Havlick (US 2532716) and in view of Koenig et al. (US 20130299315).
Regarding claim 25: Aumann discloses a core barrel head assembly (Fig. 1; title; abstr.). Aumann discloses a distal portion including an elongate tube body 14, 16, 106, 163 having an outer surface, an interior cavity, a proximal end, and a distal end (Figs 1, 2A; [0053], [0056]). Aumann discloses a valve body (body of 20, 22) having a distal end and a proximal end and that the valve body defines an interior cavity having an interior surface (Fig. 1 – the examiner finds that the valve body comprises the valve 20, 160 and the structure surrounding the chambers above and below the valve). Aumann discloses that the valve body defines a fluid passage and that the distal end of the valve body is configured to couple to a core tube that is configured to receive a core sample (Figs. 1, 2A). Aumann discloses a spindle 42 configured to allow an upper portion of the core barrel head assembly to rotate while the distal portion of the core barrel head assembly is rotationally stationary (Fig. 1; 0054]).
Aumann does not explicitly disclose at least one greaseless thrust bearing configured to rotationally engage the spindle without application or delivery of grease, the at least one greaseless thrust bearing comprising at least one solid oil bearing. Havlick discloses at least one greaseless thrust bearing 17, 20 configured to rotationally engage the spindle (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 49-60 – Havlick does not show grease fittings or discuss grease lubrication). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the assembly of Aumann so that at least one greaseless thrust bearing is configured to rotationally engage the spindle as taught by Havlick. As both Aumann and Havlick are directed to core barrel assemblies, as Aumann is silent regarding greaseless thrust bearings (but does not preclude the use of one), as greaseless thrust bearings are very well known in the art, and as Havlick teaches a specific kind of thrust bearing (greaseless), it would have been within routine skill to select a specific bearing assembly from a finite selection of bearing assembly configurations (i.e. greased or greaseless). Such an addition or substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Aumann, as modified by Havlick, does not explicitly disclose that the at least one greaseless thrust bearing comprises at least one solid oil bearing. Koenig discloses the use of solid oil bearings 20, 22 to facilitate shaft rotation (Fig. 1; [0016]-[0018]). Thus, Aumann, as modified by Havlick, when combined with Koenig, discloses that the at least one greaseless thrust bearing comprises at least one solid oil bearing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the assembly of Aumann, as modified by Havlick, so that the at least one greaseless thrust bearing comprises a solid oil bearing as taught by Koenig. As Aumann, Havlick, and Koenig all disclose the use of thrust bearings to support rotating structures, as Aumann and Havlick are silent regarding the use of a solid oil bearing but do not preclude the use of such, as the use of solid oil bearings is known in the art (Koenig – [0018], as Koenig discusses the benefits of solid oil bearings versus a grease lubricated bearings (Koenig – [0004]), and as Koenig explicitly teaches using solid oil bearings for rotating structures, it would have been within routine skill to select a specific bearing assembly from a finite selection of bearing assemblies (i.e. greased, greaseless, or solid oil). Such an addition or substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the valve body at least partially defines at least one opening for providing fluid communication between the fluid passage and the distal end of the valve body (Aumann - Figs. 1, 2A). Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the core barrel head assembly does not comprise a grease port (Aumann – Fig. 2D; [0089] – Aumann’s grease port is through the bearing housing; Havlick – Fig. 1 – no grease port; Koenig – Fig. 1 – no grease port).
Regarding claim 26: Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the electronics compartment houses at least one of a battery or an electronic orientation instrument (Aumann - Figs. 1-2G; [0059], [0068]).
Regarding claim 28: Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the electronics compartment defines the at least one opening for providing fluid communication between the fluid passage and the distal end of the valve body (Aumann - Figs. 1-2G).
Regarding claim 33: Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the core barrel head assembly comprises thrust bearings (Aumann - [0062], [0066], [0093]; Havlick – Fig. 1) but does not explicitly limit the assembly to only have one greaseless thrust bearing and no additional thrust bearings in engagement with the spindle. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the assembly of Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, so that the core barrel head assembly comprises only a single greaseless thrust bearing and does not include additional thrust bearings in engagement with the spindle. As both Aumann and Havlick are directed to core barrel assemblies, as neither Aumann nor Havlick discuss the bearing support design and do not make any specific requirements regarding the number of bearings and as bearing design to support a particular load is very well known through the art, it would have been within routine skill to select a specific bearing design using a specific/preferred number of bearings from a finite selection of bearing assembly configurations (i.e. one bearing or several bearings; the desired/required number of bearings in a bearing design would be based on the load to be supported and the mechanical strength on the bearing). Such an addition or substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 35: Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses an electronics compartment (Aumann - 36, 38) having an outer surface (Aumann - Figs. 1-2G; [0054]). Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the electronics compartment is disposed within the interior cavity of the valve body (see above; Aumann - Figs. 1-2G – the examiner finds that the valve body comprises the valve 20 and the structure surrounding the chambers above and below the valve). Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the electronics compartment is attached to the valve body so that the interior surface of the interior cavity of the valve body and the outer surface of the electronics department define a fluid passage (Aumann - Figs. 1-2G).
Regarding claim 37: Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the upper portion of the core barrel head assembly comprises a latch body (Aumann - Fig. 1; [0055]).
Regarding claim 39: Aumann, as modified by Havlick and Koenig, discloses that the at least one greaseless thrust bearing comprises a plurality of greaseless thrust bearings (Aumann - [0062], [0066], [0093]; Havlick – Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27, 29-30, 32, and 36 are 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance.
Coring drill bits and thus coring heads, coring assemblies, and related structure are very well-known in the art. The art is replete with publications that disclose various coring tools. Some publications which appear to be most pertinent to the as-recited claims include Havlick (US 2532716), Aumann et al. (US 20020033281), Koenig et al. (US 20130299315), Uhlenberg (US 20170306712), Drenth et al. (US 20150300162), Cooper et al. (US 3871487), Muntz et al. (US 20140174828), Drenth (US 20130105227), Xie et al. (US 20220213751), Schmidt et al. (US 20190284894), Kverel (US 20120201487), and Pray et al. (US 20180195359). This art, in various combinations, appears to generally describe certain claimed features such as, but not limited to, a drill string, a coring drill bit, a core barrel, thrust bearings, greaseless bearings, solid oil bearings, a valve body, and electronics compartment, batteries, orientation instruments and fluid passages among the electronics compartment and the valve structure. However, this art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited limitation combination that includes specific positioning relationships of the electronics compartment and fluid passages along the respective inner and outer structures of the valve and the electronics compartment. The examiner finds that these specifically recited structures, their positional relationships, and when combined with and when taken as a whole provides for an apparatus that cannot be reasonably gleaned from the art without consulting the instant specification or lengthy experimentation. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, at the time that the invention was made, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine such features from the prior art without undue experimentation and/or hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 4/15/26, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 25-26, 28, 33, and 37-39 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants’ arguments, directed to claims 25-26, 28, 33, 37, and 39 are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights