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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 should be amended to ” The system of claim 3, wherein the first piston surface is in communication with fluid in the chamber and the second piston surface is in communication with fluid outside the central body.
Claim 14, line 10, should be amended to “an interface pad wherein the interface pad is movable relative…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013082376 A1 to Murphy In view of US 20110000665 A1 to Chesnutt.
Regarding claim 1: Murphy discloses 1. A system, comprising:
a central body 100;
at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly 106 ([0021],Figure 3) configured to extend radially outward from the central body, the hydrostatically-actuatable assembly having at least one piston body 108 exposed to hydrostatic pressure [0025];
wherein:
the at least one piston body 108 having a first piston surface and a second piston surface that has a surface area that is larger than that of the first piston surface (Fig. 4, the surface of 108 nearer the central passage 68 is larger than both the distal end 146, and the surface of 108 at 141); and
when the at least one piston body is exposed to hydrostatic pressure, the at least one piston body moves radially outward from the central body([0035], direction 142).
However Murphy does not disclose a plurality of passive structures, each of which is:
configured to extend radially outward from the central body; and
circumferentially spaced from the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly and another one of the plurality of passive structures.
Chesnutt teaches a pressure actuated centralizer [0002] with an active section and a plurality of passive structures 220, each of which is: configured to extend radially outward from the central body (Figure 3); and circumferentially spaced from the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly and another one of the plurality of passive structures(Figure 3).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Murphy and use passive structures for two of his fins, and as such have a plurality of passive structures, each of which is: configured to extend radially outward from the central body; and circumferentially spaced from the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly and another one of the plurality of passive structures, in view of Chesnutt, as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, as Chesnutt shows that having fins without moving parts works to perform the same function without additional moving parts, it would have been obvious to use the design of fixed blades of Chesnutt to reduce the complexity of the overall assembly.
Regarding claim 2: Murphy discloses 2. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly 106 comprises a housing having a recess configured to receive the at least one piston body (Fig. 4) and wherein the at least one piston body is configured to be disposed within the recess of the housing such that the at least one piston body and the housing cooperate to define a sealed chamber 141 therebetween. [0036]
Regarding claim 3: Murphy discloses 3. The system of claim 2, comprising an outer body 36,38 within which the central body, the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly, and the plurality of passive structures are disposed (Figure 4), and wherein, when the at least one piston body is exposed to a threshold hydrostatic pressure, the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly is configured to move to contact an inner surface of the outer body to secure the central body relative to the outer body (Abstract, [0034]).
Regarding claim 7: Murphy discloses the claimed invention except explicitly 7. The system of claim 1, wherein each of the passive structures are equidistantly spaced along the circumference of the central body from one another and from the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly.
However since Murphy’s active structures are equidistantly spaced along the circumference [0030], in making the modification above, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have made wherein each of the passive structures are equidistantly spaced along the circumference of the central body from one another and from the at least one hydrostatically-actuatable assembly, in view of Murphy, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Regarding claim 8: Murphy discloses, wherein the central body comprises a longitudinal axis and each hydrostatically-actuatable assembly is disposed at substantially the same position along the longitudinal axis of the central body.(Figure 2)
In making the modification above, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have made wherein each of the passive structures replace some of the active structures, in view of Murphy, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This would result in the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9: Murphy discloses the claimed invention except 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises an equal number of the hydrostatically-actuatable assemblies and passive structures.
Murphy teaches that any number of blades may be used [0030].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have when modifying Murphy to have more than three fins, four for example, and to have two being floating blades, in view of Chesnutt, as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (three or four fins, with one or two floating blades), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013082376 A1 to Murphy and US 20110000665 A1 to Chesnutt, in view of US 20040035199 A1 to Meister.
Regarding claim 10: Murphy discloses the claimed invention except an interface pad configured to be coupled to the at least one piston body, and wherein: the interface pad is movable relative to the housing between a retracted position and an extended position in response to the at least one piston body moving within the recess; and when the interface pad is in the extended position, the interface pad engages an outer body.
Meister teaches an extendable piston 406 with an interface pad 408 to anchor a tool. [0040].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Murphy and include a pad on the end of his piston, such that when the piston is moved to the extended position, it would press against the outer body, in view of Meister, so as to act as a gripper element and in increase the friction between the anchor and the wall [0040-0044]
Regarding claims 11-13: Murphy discloses the claimed invention except
11. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, wherein the interface pad includes one or more angled surfaces.
12. (Currently Amended) The system of claim] 10, wherein the
13. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 12,wherein the interface pad includes a second surface that is angled relative to a longitudinal axis of the at least one piston body by a second angle that is opposite the first angle.
Meister teaches the interface pad 400/500 with one or more angled surfaces angled relative to a longitudinal axis of the at least one piston body by a first angle and wherein the interface pad includes a second surface that is angled relative to a longitudinal axis of the at least one piston body by a second angle that is opposite the first angle. (Figure 5)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Murphy and include a pad on the end of his piston with angled surfaces in the style of Meister, in view of Meister, so as to act as a gripper element and in increase the friction between the anchor and the wall and “ensure that the gripper does not become stuck or wedged into the formation” [0040-0044]
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013082376 A1 to Murphy in view of US 20040035199 A1 to Meister.
Regarding claim 14: Murphy discloses 14. (Currently Amended) A hydrostatically-actuatable anchor mount comprising:
a housing 102 configured to extend from a central body 100 having a central passageway 68, the housing having a recess configured to receive a piston body 108 (Figure 4);
a piston body 108 configured to be disposed within the recess of the housing such that the piston body and the housing cooperate to define a sealed chamber therebetween 141 [0035], the piston body having:
a first piston surface in communication with fluid in the chamber (Fig. 4 ,[0035]); and
a second piston surface 146 sealed off from the chamber and the central passageway of the central body;
wherein when the piston body is exposed to hydrostatic pressure, the piston body is configured move within the recess and radially outward from the housing to engage with an inner surface of an outer body.[0035-36]
However Murphy fails to disclose an interface pad wherein the interface is movable relative to the housing between a retracted position and an extended position in response to the piston body moving
Meister teaches an extendable piston 406 with an moveable interface pad 408 to anchor a tool. [0040].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Murphy and include a pad on the end of his piston, such that the interface pad is movable relative to the housing between a retracted position and an extended position in response to the piston body moving, and it would press against the outer body, in view of Meister, so as to act as a gripper element and in increase the friction between the anchor and the wall [0040-0044]
Regarding claim 17: Murphy discloses 17. (Original) The mount of claim 14, wherein the chamber 141 comprises fluid at atmospheric pressure. [0036]
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013082376 A1 to Murphy and US 20040035199 A1 to Meister, further in view of US 4691779 A to McMahan.
Regarding claim 18: Murphy discloses the claimed invention except 18. (Currently Amended) The mount of claim 17, wherein the chamber comprises ambient air.
McMahan teaches a downhole system with a piston 455 and chamber 516 where the chamber is initially filled with air at substantially atmospheric pressure. (Col 17, lines 45-50).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Murphy such that his chamber comprised air at atmospheric pressure, in view of McMahan, as a well-known means to fill a chamber for the opposite of a piston actuated by hydraulic pressure in a wellbore tool. Furthermore, this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6,15-16 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 1/15/2026 have been fully considered and the rejections based on Chesnutt are withdrawn.
New rejections based on WO 2013082376 A1 to Murphy are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674