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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 04/21/2026.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/21/82026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 01/07/2026.
Applicant' s argument with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oothoudt (US7,984,773).
Claim 1. Oothoudt discloses: An apparatus comprising:
a first tubular configured to surround a device within a wellbore (200, 200’, 300 lift bit; Fig. 2-3), wherein the first tubular includes:
a cutting face (204 first end, Fig. 2A) including a number of radial cutters (220 inserts, Fig. 2A), wherein a cutter slot is formed between each pair of radial cutters (214 narrow or 216 broader portion, Fig. 2A); and
a tubular body (202 body, Fig. 2A) having an outer diameter (outer diameter of outer surface of 202, Fig. 2A) and extending away from the cutter face (202 extends away from 204, Fig. 2A), wherein the tubular body includes
a plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels which extend a length of the tubular body (232 channels extend along the length of 202 Fig. 2A), wherein
each cutter slot leads into a respective longitudinal annular transport channel (214 or 206 leads into 232, Fig. 2A), and wherein
each longitudinal transport body is recessed radially inward from the outer diameter of the tubular body (232 is a smaller radial diameter than outer diameter of outer surface of 202, Fig. 2A; 232 can be located on the outer surface with a variety of depths; Col. 5, lines 40-42).
Claim 2. Oothoudt discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel of the plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels includes a smaller outer diameter than the outer diameter of the first tubular (232 is a smaller radial diameter than outer diameter of outer surface of 202, Fig. 2A), and wherein the plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels allow at least one of a first wellbore fluid and cuttings material to flow around the first tubular (232 can be used to contain displaced material and direct movement of material axially up along the body; Col. 5, lines 35-40, Fig. 1B).
Claim 4. Oothoudt discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each bypass channel is a helical bypass channel (232 is helical, Fig. 2A).
Claim 6. Oothoudt discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each cutter slot includes a first side and a second side (in a different embodiment of 300; 321 lead edge, 322 top edge are the first and second sides, Fig. 3C), and wherein at least one of the first side and the second side are substantially oriented with a longitudinal axis of the first tubular (S sweep angle can be between 1 to 89 degrees, Fig. 3C; Col 6, line 54 – Col. 7, line 3).
Claim 7. Oothoudt discloses: The apparatus of claim 6, wherein at least one of the first side and the second side of each cutter slot are oriented at a lead angle (S sweep angle can be between 1 to 89 degrees to move or sweep away displaced material, Fig. 3C; Col 6, line 54 – Col. 7, line 3).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oothoudt (US7,984,773) in view of Anderson et al. (US3,331,455).
Claim 3. Oothoudt discloses: The apparatus of claim 1.
Oothoudt does not disclose: wherein at least a portion of the longitudinal annular transport channels merge into a larger flow area around the first tubular.
Anderson discloses a core bit comprising of helical flow channels leading into larger cross sectional flow area.
Anderson teaches: at least a portion of the longitudinal annular transport channels (13 flutes, Fig. 1) merge into a larger flow area around the first tubular (implicit annular area proximal 13 around 18 tubing as depicted on Fig. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the channels of Oothoudt by including an area of increased flow area around the body as taught by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide substantial hole clearance for the removal of debris as taught by Anderson (Col. 1, lines 57-61).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oothoudt (US7,984,773) in view of Mitchell (US1,834,583).
Claim 5. Oothoudt discloses: The apparatus of claim 1.
Oothoudt does not disclose: wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel is a straight bypass channel.
Mitchell discloses a core drill comprising of straight bypass channels.
Mitchell teaches: each longitudinal annular transport channel is a straight longitudinal annular transport channel (27 flutes are straight, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the channels of Oothoudt to a straight geometry as taught by Mitchell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide ample clearance for fluid flow up around the outside of the body as taught by Mitchell (Col. 4, lines 71-72).
Claims 8-9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalande et al. (US5,402,850) in view of Oothoudt (US7,984,773).
Claim 8. Lalande discloses: A system comprising:
a casing string (14 casing, Fig. 1) cemented within at least one wellbore formed in one or more subsurface formations (Col. 1, line 7);
a first tubular (18 shoe, Fig. 1) configured for use within an inner diameter of a casing string wherein an annulus exist between the first tubular and the casing (22 annual space, Fig. 1).
Lalande does not disclose: a number of radial cutters, wherein a cutter slot is formed between each pair of radial cutters, and a tubular body having an outer diameter and extending away from the cutting face, wherein the tubular body includes a plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels disposed which define flow paths to convey debris along the annulus, wherein each cutter slot leads into a respective longitudinal annular transport channel, and wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel is recessed radially inward from the outer diameter of the tubular body.
Oothoudt discloses a drill bit for core sampling includes a body having a central axis and first end having a tapered outer surface and a radius transverse to the central axis, and an insert having a cutting surface on the first end oriented at an axial angle relative to the radius to move material displaced during drilling away from the first end.
Oothoudt teaches: a number of radial cutters, wherein a cutter slot is formed between each pair of radial cutters, and a tubular body having an outer diameter and extending away from the cutting face, wherein the tubular body includes a plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels disposed which define flow paths to convey debris along the annulus, wherein each cutter slot leads into a respective longitudinal annular transport channel, and wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel is recessed radially inward from the outer diameter of the tubular body (see previously rejected claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the burning shoe of Lalande with the drill bit of Oothoudt with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Oothoudt because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9. Lalande in view of Oothoudt teaches: The system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels are configured to increase an annular flow area between the first tubular and the casing string, and wherein the plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels are configured to transport at least one of a first wellbore fluid and cuttings material the annulus between the casing string and the first tubular (Oothoudt: the geometry of 200 lift bit implicitly increases the annular flow area via difference in diameters of 202 and 232; see previously rejected claim 2; Fig. 1B).
Claim 11. Lalande in view of Oothoudt teaches: The system of claim 8, each longitudinal annular transport channel is a helical bypass channel, and wherein the plurality of longitudinal annular transport channels do not intersect along the length of tubular body (232 does not intersect; see previously rejected claim 4).
Claim 13. Lalande in view of Oothoudt teaches: The system of claim 8, wherein each cutter slot includes a first side and a second side, and wherein at least one of the first side and the second side are substantially oriented with a longitudinal axis of the first tubular (see previously rejected claim 6).
Claim 14. Lalande in view of Oothoudt teaches: The system of claim 13. at least one of the first side and the second side of each cutter slot are oriented at a lead angle (see previously rejected claim 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalande et al. (US5,402,850) in view of Oothoudt (US7,984,773) and further in view of Anderson et al. (US3,331,455).
Claim 10. Lalande in view of Oothoudt teaches: The system of claim 8.
Lalande in view of Oothoudt does not teach: a portion of the longitudinal annular transport channels merge into a larger flow area around the first tubular.
Anderson discloses a core bit comprising of helical flow channels leading into larger cross sectional flow area.
Anderson teaches: at least a portion of the longitudinal annular transport channels (13 flutes, Fig. 1) merge into a larger flow area around the first tubular (implicit annular area proximal 13 around 18 tubing as depicted on Fig. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the channels of Lalande in view of Oothoudt by including an area of increased flow area around the body as taught by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide substantial hole clearance for the removal of debris as taught by Anderson (Col. 1, lines 57-61).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalande et al. (US5,402,850) in view of Oothoudt (US7,984,773) and further in view of Mitchell (US1,834,583).
Claim 12. Lalande in view of Oothoudt teaches: The apparatus of claim 8.
Oothoudt does not disclose: wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel is a straight bypass channel.
Mitchell discloses a core drill comprising of straight bypass channels.
Mitchell teaches: each longitudinal annular transport channel is a straight longitudinal annular transport channel (27 flutes are straight, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the channels of Lalande in view of Oothoudt to a straight geometry as taught by Mitchell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide ample clearance for fluid flow up around the outside of the body as taught by Mitchell (Col. 4, lines 71-72).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Clayton (US2577605) in view of Oothoudt (US7,984,773).
Claim 15. Clayton discloses: A method comprising:
performing an equipment retrieval operation of a device in at least one wellbore formed in one or more subsurface formations (fishing operation; Col. 4, lines 1-19), the equipment retrieval operation including,
cutting, via rotation of a first tubular (11 drill bit rotates to perform cutting/drilling operation), one or more support structures (the debris in the well) of the device (Col. 4, lines 6-12; where debris is supporting the device in the wellbore and the drill bit cuts away at the debris),
wherein the first tubular (11 body, Fig. 1) includes a cutting face (distal end of 11 drill bit, Fig. 1) having a number of radial cutters (14 teeth, Fig. 1) and
a tubular body having an outer diameter and extending away from the cutting face (body of 11, Fig. 1), and
wherein a cutter slot is formed between each pair of radial cutters (recess between each 14 teeth along the face of the 11 body); and
cooling, via fluid flow (pumping of fluid will cool and flush; Col. 4, lines 9-19) through one or more channels on the tubular body (channels between 15: teeth on the outer diameter of the 11 body; Fig. 1-2), the first tubular during the cutting (Col. 4, lines 6-12).
Clayton does not disclose: longitudinal annular transport channels extending a length of the tubular body wherein each cutter slot leads into a respective longitudinal annular transport channel and wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel is recessed radially inward from the outer diameter of the tubular body.
Oothoudt discloses a drill bit for core sampling includes a body having a central axis and first end having a tapered outer surface and a radius transverse to the central axis, and an insert having a cutting surface on the first end oriented at an axial angle relative to the radius to move material displaced during drilling away from the first end.
Oothoudt teaches: longitudinal annular transport channels extending a length of the tubular body wherein each cutter slot leads into a respective longitudinal annular transport channel and wherein each longitudinal annular transport channel is recessed radially inward from the outer diameter of the tubular body (see previously rejected claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bit geometry of Clayton to include the helical channels of Oothoudt extending the length of the body with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Oothoudt because both bits perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16. Clayton in view of Oothoudt teaches: The method of claim 15, further comprising: altering a quantity of cutter slots disposed on the first tubular (Oothoudt: 220 insert quantity can vary, Col. 5, lines 14-15); altering a depth of each cutter slot (Oothoudt: depth of 232 can vary, Col. 5, lines 42-43); and altering a width of each cutter slot (Clayton: varying size and number of teeth will alter quantity, depth, width; Col. 2, Line 2; Oothoudt: width of slot will implicitly vary with 22 insert quantity).
Claim 17. Clayton in view of Oothoudt teaches The method of claim 15, determining a geometry of the one or more bypass channels, wherein a portion of the longitudinal annular transport channels include helical longitudinal annular transport channels (Hampe: augur grooves are helical; Fig. 1; Oothoudt: 232 is helical, Fig. 2A) and at least a portion of the longitudinal annular transport channels include straight longitudinal annular transport channels (Hampe: chip release groove on outer diameter of bit includes a straight channel, Fig. 1); and moving, via the rotation of the first tubular, at least a wellbore fluid and cuttings material through the one or more longitudinal annular transport channels (Hampe: inherent to rotation of the bit, the fluid and cutting will move through the bypass channels; Col. 1, lines 16-17 and 65-67; Col. 3, line 55; Oothoudt: can be used to contain displaced material and direct movement of material axially up along the body; Col. 5, lines 35-40)).
Claim 18. Clayton in view of Oothoudt teaches The method of claim 15, further comprising increasing, via the one or more longitudinal annular transport channels, an annular flow area of an annulus formed between the outer diameter of the first tubular (Hampe: Fig. 4; Oothoudt, Fig. 1B) and the inner diameter of a casing (Hampe: 19 borehole, Fig. 4), wherein moving, via rotation of the first tubular, at least a wellbore fluid (Hampe: pumping liquid; Col. 4, lines 6-8) and cuttings (Hampe: 21 debris, Fig. 4) material through the increased annular flow area between the casing and the first tubular (Hampe: the area where the chip release grooves on the outer diameter of the bit meet the augur grooves is a larger bypass area around the bit, Fig. 1; pumping removes 21; Col. 4, lines 1-19; Fig. 4; Oothoudt: the geometry of 232 channels implicitly increases the annular flow area via difference in diameters of 202 and 232; see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 19. Clayton in view of Oothoudt teaches The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining a cutter slot profile of at least one of a first side and a second side of each cutter slot (Hampe: adjacent surfaces of the recess between chip release grooves along the face of the bit, Fig. 1 and 3; Oothoudt: in a different embodiment of 300; 321 lead edge, 322 top edge are the first and second sides, Fig. 3C), wherein at least a portion of the cutter slots include a side substantially oriented with a longitudinal axis of the first tubular (Hampe: one surface of the recess on the OD is substantially oriented with longitudinal axis of the tubular as illustrated in Fig. 1; Oothoudt: S sweep angle can be between 1 to 89 degrees, Fig. 3C; Col 6, line 54 – Col. 7, line 3), and wherein at least a portion of the cutter slots include a side oriented at a lead angle (Hampe: adjacent surfaces of the recess between chip release grooves along the face of the bit, Fig. 1 and 3 is at an angle as illustrated in Fig. 3; Oothoudt: S sweep angle can be between 1 to 89 degrees to move or sweep away displaced material, Fig. 3C; Col 6, line 54 – Col. 7, line 3).
Claim 20. Clayton in view of Oothoudt teaches The method of claim 19, further comprising: determining a cutting angle of at least one of the first side and the second side of each cutter slot (Hampe: adjacent surfaces of the recess between chip release grooves along the face of the bit, Fig. 1 and 3 is at an angle as illustrated in Fig. 3; Oothoudt: S sweep angle can be between 1 to 89 degrees to move or sweep away displaced material, Fig. 3C; Col 6, line 54 – Col. 7, line 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhome et al. (WO2023146910) discloses a coring shoe comprising of straight and helical flow channels.
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.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights