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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 09/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21 and 23-29 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/22/2026, hereinafter NFOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIU; Airong et al. US 20230103110 A1, hereinafter Liu, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Liu fails to disclose a density sensor and associated control is accurate. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bulten, Norbert WO 2021074483 A1, hereinafter Bulten. In response to applicant’s further argument to Bulten not being analogous art, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that Bulten discloses a surface vessel and is therefore incapable to disclosing “control the buoyancy system to change longitudinal distribution of weight of the robot based on the sensed density”. In response, Liu discloses all the limitations except for a density sensor and its related control. Therefore, any argument made against Bulten failing to disclose buoyancy and longitudinal weight distribution are moot Bulten is not relied upon for that subject matter. Furthermore, Bulten is also disclosed as a semi-submersible [0130-0132], thereby making it and specifically its controls with respect to orientation while at least partially submerged analogous to the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOULDIN BRETT et al. WO 2021011048 A2, hereinafter Bouldin, in view of Liu, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Bouldin fails to disclose the limitation “changing longitudinal distribution of weight of the downhole robot based on the sensed density”, is accurate. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bouldin have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Bouldin fails to disclose “navigating a wellbore with an untethered autonomous downhole robot”, is accurate. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 Ln 3, please amend to --sense [[an]] the orientation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 23 Ln 1-3 states the limitation "of the downhole robot and comprising: navigating a wellbore with an untethered autonomous downhole robot that has a density”. It is unclear if the second robot is in addition to the first stated robot. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, lines 2-3 interpreted as --of [[the]] an untethered autonomous downhole robot [[and]] comprising: navigating a wellbore with the robot that has a density --.
Claim 23 Ln 10-11 states the limitation "passively reorienting the robot via contact with the walls of the wellbore”. Claim 28 Ln 3 states “passively reorienting the downhole robot comprises contacting an inner wall of the wellbore”. It is unclear if the second reorienting is in addition to or the same as the first reorienting. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, they were interpreted as the same. Appropriate amendments are required to alleviate issue.
Claims 24-29 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 23.
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 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 s 1-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU; Airong et al. US 20230103110 A1, hereinafter Liu, in view of Bulten, Norbert WO 2021074483 A1, hereinafter Bulten. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (underwater, submersible vessels); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (navigating underwater, water characteristics). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) an untethered, downhole robot is configured to have a density within + or – 20% of wellbore fluid in which it will be operating, the downhole robot comprising:
a generally elongate housing (111);
at least one propulsion unit (22) on an end of the housing on a longitudinal axis;
a sensor system (3) configured to
sense structural information regarding geometry of a wellbore ([0044, 0059, 0061] states obtaining geometry of the surrounding area, such as a wellbore, which has been interpreted as intended use),
determine position of the robot in the wellbore and orientation of the robot in the wellbore ([0013, 0046] states obtaining position/depth/orientation of the robot), and
collect measurements characterizing the wellbore fluid characteristics ([0013, 0046] states obtaining “environmental data” obtained as the fluid characteristics surrounding the robot, such as wellbore fluid in the interpreted intended use);
a buoyancy system (112/113) configured to change a longitudinal distribution of weight of the robot to aid with vertical descent and ascent [0045];
a controller (“control system”) coupled and configured to receive the sensed structural information, the position of the robot in the wellbore, and orientation of the robot in the wellbore and the wellbore fluid characteristic measurements to control the robot’s traversal within the wellbore [0044-0046], wherein the controller is configured to control the buoyancy system to change the longitudinal distribution of the weight of the robot [0045] based on the sensed density; and
a memory device (“memory”) to log collected data locally on robot [0068, 0075].
Liu fails to explicitly state that the sensor system comprises a density sensor configured to sense density of the wellbore fluid surrounding the downhole robot; wherein the wellbore fluid characteristic measurements include the sensed density of the wellbore fluid and the controller is configured to control the buoyancy system to change the longitudinal distribution of the weight of the robot based on the sensed density.
Bulten discloses (Fig. 1) a downhole robot comprising:
a generally elongate housing (105);
a propulsion unit (150);
a sensor system (“plurality of sensors” [0057]);
a controller (120); and
a density sensor (260, 290) configured to sense density of a wellbore fluid surrounding the downhole robot, wherein the wellbore fluid characteristic measurements include the sensed density of the wellbore fluid ([0011, 0117], “environmental information… water density information”; as stated above the location of use of the robot is considered a functional limitation in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(g), while definite, does not convey or limit the use of prior art to the particular claimed location); and
the controller is further configured to control the buoyancy system to change the longitudinal distribution of the weight of the robot based on the sensed density of the downhole fluid for the purpose of operating the propulsion unit in the safest and most efficient way possible [0117, 0121, 0249].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Liu, by providing the density sensor, as taught by Bulten, for the purpose of operating the propulsion unit in the safest and most efficient way possible.
To further clarify the modification: Liu already taught a buoyancy system and controller using wellbore fluid characteristics for use in control of the robot orientation via buoyancy. The sensor system of Liu was modified to comprise a density sensor, the controller of Liu was modified to incorporate density as part of the wellbore fluid characteristics for use in control of the robot orientation resulting in a robot controller configured to control the buoyancy system to change the longitudinal distribution of the weight of the robot based on the sensed density of the downhole fluid.
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) wherein the controller (“control system”) capable of discerning deviation of the wellbore from vertical and, in response, control the buoyancy system to change longitudinal distribution of the weight of the robot, wherein the magnitude of the change in the longitudinal distribution of the weight suffices to reorient the robot [0044-0047]
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) in response to discernment of the deviation during descent of the robot into the wellbore, the controller is configured to control the buoyancy system to change the longitudinal distribution of the weight of the robot such that a bow of the robot is made less dense, a stern of the robot is made more dense, or densities of both the bow and the stern are changed ([0045] states the control system controlling the buoyancy system to make various parts of the robot less dense, to achieve the desired “attitude”, [0056] states an operational condition whereby the bow was made less dense and the stern more dense (“steering rotor module of the underwater robot faces the water surface”)).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) the controller is configured to regulate a lateral direction of the reorientation of the robot that occurs responsive to the changed longitudinal distribution of weight ([0045 and 0057] states controlling the lateral or rotational orientation of the robot).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) the robot further comprises a steering mechanism (211-213) coupled to the controller (“control system”), wherein the controller is configured to regulate the lateral direction of the reorientation of the robot using the steering mechanism [0041].
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) the sensor system includes an orientation sensor (3) configured to sense an orientation of the robot [0046]; and the controller (“control system”) coupled to receive the sensed orientation information from the orientation sensor and to regulate the lateral direction of the reorientation based thereon [0046].
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) the buoyancy system is a multi-chamber, internal buoyancy system that conveys liquid between chambers without communicating fluid with surroundings of the downhole robot [0044-0047].
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) the buoyancy system is configured to change lateral distribution of weight of the robot ([0045 and 0057] states controlling the lateral or rotational orientation of the robot); and the controller is configured to control the changes in the lateral distribution of the weight based on the sensed structural information [0045, 0057].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Bulten, in further view of Saeed; Abubaker et al. US 20220065058 A1, hereinafter Saeed. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (underwater vessels); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (navigating underwater). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the robot further comprising three or more protruding members distributed around the housing, wherein the protruding members are configured to contact an inner wall of a wellbore that is being traversed while preventing the housing from contacting the inner wall.
Saeed discloses (Fig. 2) a downhole robot (10) comprising:
a generally elongate housing (14/18)
a sensor system (12);
a controller (16) and
three or more protruding members (28, 30) distributed around the housing, wherein the protruding members are configured to contact an inner wall of a wellbore that is being traversed while preventing the housing from contacting the inner wall [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Bouldin, by providing the three or more protruding members, as taught by Saeed, for the purpose of preventing the housing from contacting the inner wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-19 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 23-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 2 except fails to explicitly state that the buoyancy system is configured to communicate fluid with surroundings of the downhole robot.
Withstanding the formalities/rejections listed previously, Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter. The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed relationship between the buoyancy system and the fluid surroundings. Although Liu discloses a robot comprising a buoyancy system, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Liu to incorporate the details of the buoyancy system is configured to communicate fluid with surroundings of the downhole robot, along with the other claimed components of the robot. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Bouldin discloses (Fig. 2, 4, 14, 15) a method of navigating a wellbore (120) with a downhole robot (140), the method performed by a controller (208) of the downhole robot and comprising:
detecting, using a sensor (CCL) [0018, 0051, 0079-0080] located on the downhole robot, approach of the downhole robot to a deviation of the wellbore from vertical (402) [0100]; and
in response to the detection of the approach of the deviation, reorient the downhole robot ([0023] states that upon detection, initiating a thruster/propulsion unit to reorient from vertical to horizontal and traverse the non-vertical part of the wellbore).
Bouldin fails to explicitly state that reorienting the robot is performed by changing longitudinal distribution of weight of the downhole robot.
Liu discloses (Fig. 1-6) an untethered, downhole robot comprising:
a generally elongate housing (111);
at least one propulsion unit (22) on an end of the housing on the longitudinal axis;
a sensor system (3) configured to
sense structural information regarding geometry of a wellbore ([0044, 0059, 0061] states obtaining geometry of the surrounding area, such as a wellbore, which has been interpreted as intended use),
determine position and orientation of the robot in the wellbore ([0013, 0046] states obtaining position/depth/orientation of the robot), and
collect measurements characterizing the wellbore fluid characteristics ([0013, 0046] states obtaining “environmental data” obtained as the fluid characteristics surrounding the robot, such as wellbore fluid in the interpreted intended use);
a controller (“control system”) configured to receive the sensed structural information, the position and orientation of the robot in the wellbore and the wellbore fluid characteristics to control the robot’s traversal within the wellbore [0044-0046]; and
a memory device (“memory”) to log collected data locally on robot [0068, 0075].
Liu further states that reorienting the robot by changing longitudinal distribution of weight of the downhole robot enables control for “optimal attitude” for passing a “vertical narrow environment” or a “horizontal narrow environment” [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Bouldin, by providing the robot components (propulsion unit, sensor system, controller, memory) and method of reorienting, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of controlling for “optimal attitude” for passing a “vertical narrow environment” or a “horizontal narrow environment”.
Bouldin further fails to explicitly state sensing a density of downhole fluid surrounding the downhole robot; and changing longitudinal distribution of weight of the downhole robot based on the sensed density.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step regarding density. Although the modified device of Bouldin/Liu, specifically Bouldin, discloses a robot comprising a buoyancy system, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bouldin to incorporate the details of sensing a density of downhole fluid surrounding the downhole robot; and changing longitudinal distribution of weight of the downhole robot based on the sensed density, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 13-19 and 21 depend upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 23, Bouldin discloses (Fig. 2, 4, 14, 15) a method performed by a controller (208) of the downhole robot (140) and comprising:
navigating a wellbore (120) with an autonomous downhole robot that has a density within + or – 20% of wellbore fluid in which it is operating ([0100-0101] discloses operation of (140) such as controlled sinking and ‘flying’ through a horizontal wellbore indicative of having a density within + or – 20% of wellbore fluid), the navigating comprising:
detecting, using a sensor (CCL) [0018, 0051, 0079-0080] located on the downhole robot, approach of the downhole robot to a deviation of the wellbore from vertical (402) [0100], and
in response to the detection of the approach of the deviation, exclusively driving the robot with a propulsion unit, the driving including traversing a portion (122) of the wellbore (120) and passively reorienting the robot via guidance from geometry of the wellbore ([0023] states that upon detection, initiating a thruster/propulsion unit to reorient from vertical to horizontal and traverse the non-vertical part of the wellbore).
Bouldin fails to explicitly state that passively reorienting the robot is via contact with the walls of the wellbore.
Saeed discloses (Fig. 2) a method of navigating a wellbore “wellbore” with a downhole robot (10), the method performed by a controller (16) of the downhole robot and comprising:
detecting, using a sensor (12) located on the downhole robot; and
the downhole robot further comprises three or more protruding members (28, 30) distributed around the housing, wherein passively reorienting the downhole robot comprises contacting an inner wall of a wellbore with at least one of the protruding members while preventing the housing from contacting the inner wall [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Bouldin, by providing the three or more protruding members and passively reorienting the downhole robot comprises contacting an inner wall of a wellbore with at least one of the protruding members, as taught by Saeed, for the purpose of preventing the housing from contacting the inner wall.
Bouldin further fails to explicitly state that the method comprises navigating a wellbore with an untethered autonomous downhole robot.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step regarding untethered navigating. Although the modified device of Bouldin/Saeed, specifically Bouldin, discloses navigating an autonomous downhole robot, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bouldin to incorporate the details of navigating a wellbore with an untethered autonomous downhole robot, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 24-29 depend upon claim 23.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights