CTNF 18/967,877 CTNF 87167 Detailed Action Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed April 14, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because figure 1 use numbered rectangular/circular boxes to represent some elements, and the boxes do not include a label to indicate what each box represents. All numbered rectangular/circular boxes must include a label describing what each box represents in addition to the number so one of ordinary skill in the art could quickly identify what each box represents. Therefore, boxes 148A, 148B and 148N need a label. For example, box 148A must include the label “processor” in addition to the number 148A. No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Billingham et al. (US-11,428,092) . In regards to claim 1, Billingham teaches a method comprising receiving a job plan for operating a wireline system including a wireline tool in relation to a wellbore at a wellsite [fig. 1 elements 12 (wireline tool) and 18 (wireline), fig. 5 element 159 (job plan), col. 5 L. 1-12 (wireline tool), col. 9 L. 57-61 (receiving job plan), col. 11 L. 53-62 (job plan), col. 12 L. 44-47 (receiving job plan)]. Also, Billingham teaches that the method comprises accessing wireline information associated with operation of the wireline system at the wellsite [col. 6 L. 19-25, L. 37-44 and L. 50-64 (wireline information), col. 7 L. 6-9 (wireline information), col. 10 L. 24-32 (access wireline information)]. Furthermore, Billingham teaches that the method comprises modifying the job plan based on the wireline information to generate a modified job plan [col. 10 L. 24-32, col. 14 L. 41-51]. Billingham further teaches that the method comprises autonomously controlling the operation of the wireline system at the wellsite based on the modified job plan [col. 10 L. 24-32, col. 14 L. 41-51]. In regards to claim 2, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the wireline information includes tension of a line of the wireline system at a point at a surface of the wellsite and a depth of the wireline tool in the wellbore [fig. 2 element 74 (surface tension sensor), col. 6 L. 19-25, L. 37-44 and L. 50-64 (tension and depth), col. 7 L. 6-9 (depth)]. Furthermore, Billingham teaches that the method comprises autonomously controlling the operation of the wireline system at the wellsite based on the tension of the line of the wireline system at a point at the surface of the wellsite and the depth of the wireline tool in the wellbore [col. 10 L. 24-32, col. 14 L. 41-51]. In regards to claim 4, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the method comprises accessing log data gathered by the wireline tool operating to log at least a portion of the wellbore [col. 5 L. 1-12, col. 10 L. 22-29]. Also, Billingham teaches that the method comprises interpreting the log data; and autonomously controlling the operation of the wireline system based on an interpretation of the log data [col. 10 L. 29-32, col. 14 L. 41-51]. In regards to claim 7, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the system can determine when the tension of the wireline is above a threshold (when wireline information indicates a safety concern), and stop the wireline when the tension is above the threshold [col. 13 L. 58-65]. This teaching means that the wireline information includes information indicative of a safety concern associated with the operation of the wireline system in relation to the wellbore, and that the method comprises detecting the safety concern based on the wireline information; and autonomously controlling the operation of the wireline system based on detection of the safety concern. In regards to claim 8, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the a remote user can receive information about events that have occurred at the wireline system [fig. 4 element 134, col. 13 L. 58-66, col. 14 L. 1-8]. This teaching means that the method comprises providing remote access to the wireline information associated with operation of the wireline system. Also, Billingham teaches that the remote user can control the wireline system from a remote location by sending instructions to the system [col. 11 L. 14-18, col. 14 L. 2-8]. This teaching means that the method comprises receiving remote user input in relation to the operation of the wireline system that is generated based on remote access to the wireline information associated with the operation of the wireline system; and controlling operation of the wireline system at runtime based on the remote user input. In regards to claim 9, Billingham, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed functions of the claimed system. Furthermore, Billingham teaches that the functions can be implemented using a processor that executes instructions stored in memory [col. 9 L. 64-67, col. 10 L. 1-21]. This teaching means that Billingham teaches a system comprising one or more processors and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the claimed functions. In regards to claim 10, Billingham, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 12, Billingham, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 15, Billingham, as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 16, Billingham, as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 17, Billingham, as shown in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above, teaches the claimed system comprising the claimed controlled configured to perform the claimed functions. Furthermore, Billingham teaches that system receives the job plan from a TOOLPLANER and the wireline information from a data acquisition system [col. 6 L. 37-46 and L. 53-60, col. 9 L. 57-64, col. 10 L. 22-29]. This teaching means that the system also comprises a communication interface configured to receive a job plan for operating a wireline system including a wireline tool in relation to a wellbore at a wellsite and access wireline information associated with operation of the wireline system at the wellsite . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingham et al. (US-11,428,092) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Schlosser (US-10,961,839) . In regards to claim 3, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the method comprises autonomously controlling the operation of the wireline system based on the wireline information [col. 10 L. 24-32, col. 14 L. 41-51]. However, the combination does not teach that the controlling includes controlling a speed power of the line of the wireline system, controlling a tension in the line of the wireline system, performing auto-spooling, or a combination thereof through a wireline winch controller. On the other hand, Schlosser teaches that the autonomous control of the operation based on wireline information can include controlling a tension in the line of the wireline system [col. 18 L. 4-7 and L. 56-67, col. 24 L. 31-39]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Schlosser’s teachings of controlling the tension of the wireline in the method taught by Billingham because it will permit the system to update the job plan based on the actual tension of the wireline and maintain a safe tension on the wireline when executing the jo plan. In regards to claim 11, the combination of Billingham and Schlosser, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingham et al. (US-11,428,092) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 9 above, and in view of Howells et al (US-4,556,884) . In regards to claim 5, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the system monitors wireline information associated with the operation of the wireline system such as depth [col. 6 L. 19-23, L. 39-44 and L. 56-60, col. 10 L. 22-29]. However, Billingham does not teach that the method comprises autonomously controlling operation of the wireline tool in logging at least a portion of the wellbore based on the wireline information. On the other hand, Howells teaches that a command can be sent to the tool when it is determined that a desired depth has been reached [col. 12 L. 46-54, col. 22 L. 25-34, col. 32 L. 10-19]. This teaching means that the method comprises autonomously controlling operation of the wireline tool in logging at least a portion of the wellbore based on the depth/wireline information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Howells’s teachings of controlling the tool to obtain measurements based on the depth in the method taught by Billingham because it will permit the system to obtain downhole measurements at desired depths without human intervention. In regards to claim 13, the combination of Billingham and Howells, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingham et al. (US-11,428,092) in view of Howells et al (US-4,556,884) as applied to claim(s) 5 and 13 above, and in further view of Carisella et al. (US-5,115,865) . In regards to claim 6, the combination of Billingham and Howells, as applied in the rejection of claim 5 above, does not teach that controlling operation of the wireline tool further comprises controlling delivery of power to the wireline tool based on the wireline information associated with the operation of the wireline system. On the other hand, Carisella teaches that power can be delivered to the tool when the tool has reached a desired depth (wireline information) [col. 1 L. 10-12 and L. 19-23]. This teaching means that controlling operation of the wireline tool further comprises controlling delivery of power to the wireline tool based on the wireline information associated with the operation of the wireline system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Carisella’s teachings of controlling delivery of power to the tool based on the depth in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to only deliver power to the tool when it is desired thereby conserving power of the system. In regards to claim 14, the combination of Billingham, Howells and Carisella, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingham et al. (US-11,428,092) as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and in view of Howells et al (US-4,556,884) and Carisella et al. (US-5,115,865) . In regards to claim 18, Billingham, as applied in the rejection of claim 17 above, teaches that the system can monitor depth and tension of the wireline system [col. 6 L. 19-23, L. 39-44 and L. 56-60, col. 10 L. 22-29]. This teaching means that the system comprises a depth and tension measurement system configured to gather the wireline information. Also, Billingham teaches that the system can control the wireline system when wireline information is above a threshold [col. 13 L. 58-65]. This teaching means that the system comprises a safety monitoring system configured to gather the wireline information. The aforementioned teaching also mean the controller is configured to generate control instructions for controlling operation of the wireline system based on the wireline information gathered by the depth and tension measurement system and the safety monitoring system. Billingham does not teach that the system comprises a tool power control and telemetry system configured to gather the wireline information. On the other hand, Howells teaches that a command can be sent to the tool to obtain and transmit measurements when it is determined that a desired depth (wireline information) has been reached [col. 12 L. 46-54, col. 22 L. 25-34, col. 32 L. 10-19]. This teaching means that the system comprises a tool telemetry system configured to gather the wireline information in order to know when to send commands to the tool based on gathered wireline information. This teaching also means that the controller is configured to generate control instructions for controlling operation of the wireline system based on the wireline information gathered by the tool telemetry system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Howells’s teachings of controlling the tool to obtain measurements based on the depth in the method taught by Billingham because it will permit the system to obtain downhole measurements at desired depths without human intervention. The combination of Billingham and Howells does not teach that the system comprises a tool power control system configured to gather the wireline information. On the other hand, Carisella teaches that power can be delivered to the tool when the tool has reached a desired depth (wireline information) [col. 1 L. 10-12 and L. 19-23]. This teaching means that the system comprises a tool power control system configured to gather the wireline information in order to know when to deliver power to the tool based on gathered wireline information. This teaching also means that the controller is configured to generate control instructions for controlling operation of the wireline system based on the wireline information gathered by the tool power control system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Carisella’s teachings of controlling delivery of power to the tool based on the depth in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to only deliver power to the tool when it is desired thereby conserving power of the system. In regards to claim 19, the combination of Billingham, Howells and Carisella, as applied in the rejection of claim 18 above, further teaches that the system can control power delivery and the tool based on the gathered wireline information [see Howells col. 12 L. 46-54, col. 22 L. 25-34, col. 32 L. 10-19, see Carisella col. 1 L. 10-12 and L. 19-23]. This teaching means that the tool power control and telemetry system are further configured to implement the control instructions to control the operation of the wireline system. In regards to claim 20, the combination of Billingham, Howells and Carisella, as applied in the rejection of claim 18 above, further teaches that the system comprises a wireline winch controller configured to implement the control instructions to control operation of the wireline system [see Billingham col. 13 L. 21-24 and L. 58-65]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F. 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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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. /FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 2 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 3 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 4 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 5 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 6 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 7 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 8 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 9 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 10 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 11 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 12 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 13 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/967,877 Page 14 Art Unit: 2688
Prosecution Insights