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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myhre et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0194937) in view of Martini (US Patent No. 7,314,083).
In reference to claim 1, Myhre discloses a method of performing a downhole wash procedure in an offshore well 1 (par. 0039) including an annulus 7 located between a rock formation 9 and a casing 21 having a region with perforations 213 (Fig. 3) or other openings, the method comprising:
passing a washing tool 35 down the casing 21 to the region with perforations 213, the washing tool 35 having a plurality of nozzles 351 and being connected to a supply of wash fluid 36 (Fig. 4);
displacing debris 40 and fluids in the annulus 7 with wash fluid 36 by delivering the wash fluid 36 through the nozzles 351 whilst rotating (par. 0070, “flushing tool 35 rotates along with the pipe string 3 whilst flushing”) the washing tool 35 and translating (par. 0070, “pipe string 3 may be moved in a reciprocating motion whilst flushing”) the washing tool 35 in an axial direction with respect to the casing 21, such that the wash fluid 36 is forced through the perforations 213 and pulses of pressure are created in the annulus that are sufficient to displace the debris 40 and fluids (Fig. 4).
Myhre fails to disclose that whilst delivering the wash fluid, the translational movement of the washing tool is in a downward (distal) direction only.
Martini discloses translating the washing tool 100 in a downward direction only (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to translate the washing tool in a downward direction with a reasonable expectation of success so that deposits obstructing the bore can be cleaned out.
In reference to claim 2, Martini discloses that the wash fluid is delivered in a single downward (distal) pass of the washing tool 100 (Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 13, Martini discloses that the rotation speed of the wash tool is 60 r.p.m. (claims 12 and 16).
Claims 3, 5, 10, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myhre et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0194937) in view of Martini (US Patent No. 7,314,083) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glass (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0312539).
In reference to claim 3, Myhre and Martini fail to disclose that the rate of downward movement is from 0.1 feet/min to 4 feet/min.
Glass discloses translating the washing tool 10 at “1.0 to 2.5 feet per minute” (par. 0061). In combination with Martini, this would result in downward movement of 1.0 to 2.5 feet/min. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to translate the washing tool at 1.0 to 2.5 feet per minute with a reasonable expectation of success as this rate of movement is known in the art to be effective for sufficiently washing the region.
In reference to claim 5, Myhre fails to disclose that whilst delivering wash fluid, the perpendicular distance from an outlet of each nozzle to an interior wall of the casing is from 0.1 inch to 1 inch.
Glass discloses that, whilst delivering wash fluid, the perpendicular distance from an outlet of each nozzle 36 to an interior wall of the casing is from “0.5-2.5 inches” (par. 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the nozzles from .5-2.5 inches from the casing with a reasonable expectation of success as this distance is known in the art to be effective for the purpose of sufficiently washing the region.
In reference to claim 10, Myhre fails to disclose that the washing tool has between 5 and20 nozzles, each having an approximately circular orifice with a diameter of 5/32 inch to 8/32 inch (3.97 to 6.35mm).
Glass discloses that the washing tool 10 has six nozzles 24/26 (Fig. 3), each having an approximately circular orifice with a diameter of 6/32 inch (par. 0058, “.19 inches”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the nozzles as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success as nozzle configurations such as this are known in the art to be effective for the purpose of sufficiently washing the region.
In reference to claim 14, Myhre fails to disclose that the rate of downward movement is selected from approximately 0.1 feet/min, 0.2 feet/min, 0.3 feet/min, 0.4 feet/min, 0.5 feet/min, 0.6 feet/min, 0.7 feet/min, 0.8 feet/min, 0.9 feet/min, 1 foot/min, 1.2 feet/min, 1.4 feet/min, 1.5 feet/min, 1.6 feet/min, 1.8 feet/min, 2 feet/min, 2.2 feet/min, 2.4 feet/min, 2.6 feet/min, 2.8 feet/min, 3 feet/min, 3.2 feet/min, 3.4 feet/min, 3.6 feet/min, 3.8 feet/min, 4 feet/min, including from about 0.1 feet/min to 4 feet/min, between 0.5 feet/min and 2 feet/min, and about 1 foot/min.
Glass discloses that the rate of movement is “1.0 to 2.5 feet per minute” (par. 0061). In combination with Martini, this would result in downward movement of 1.0 to 2.5 feet/min. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to translate the washing tool at 1.0 to 2.5 feet per minute with a reasonable expectation of success as this rate of movement is known in the art to be effective for sufficiently washing the region.
In reference to claims 18, Myhre fails to disclose that the washing tool has between 5 and 20 nozzles, or more, each having an approximately circular orifice with a diameter selected from approximately 5/32 inch inch(3.97 mm), 6/32 inch (4.76 mm), 7/32 inch (5.56 mm), 8/32 inch (6.35 mm), from 5/32 inch to 8/32 inch (3.97 to 6.35 mm), and from 6/32 inch to 7/32 inch (4.76 to 5.56 mm).
Glass discloses that the washing tool 10 has six nozzles 24/26 (Fig. 3), each having an approximately circular orifice with a diameter of 6/32 inch (par. 0058, “.19 inches”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the nozzles as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success as nozzle configurations such as this are known in the art to be effective for the purpose of sufficiently washing the region.
In reference to claim 19, Myhre fails to disclose that the wash fluid is delivered through a plurality of nozzles selected from approximately 6 nozzles, 7 nozzles, 8 nozzles, 9 nozzles, 10 nozzles, 11 nozzles, 12 nozzles, 13 nozzles, 14 nozzles, 15 nozzles, 16 nozzles, 17 nozzles, 18 nozzles, 19 nozzles, 20 nozzles, from 6 to 20 nozzles, and from 8 to 15 nozzles.
Glass discloses that the washing tool 10 has six nozzles 24/26 (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the nozzles as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success as nozzle configurations such as this are known in the art to be effective for the purpose of sufficiently washing the region.
Claim 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myhre et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0194937) in view of Martini (US Patent No. 7,314,083) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zublin (US Patent No. 4,441,557).
In reference to claims 7 and 15, Myhre fails to disclose the density of the wash fluid.
Zublin discloses using wash fluid that is 8.3 to 8.7 pounds per gallon (col. 10, lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a wash fluid with a density of 8.3 to 8.7 pounds per gallon with a reasonable expectation of success as this wash fluid is known in the art to be effective for cleaning boreholes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 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 arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
5/04/26
Prosecution Insights