DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
Examiner notes that the most recent 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to claims 1, 12, and 19 are broad in nature and are still anticipated by Dunbar, as further detailed in the rejection herein in light of a new interpretation. Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language in light of the specification (i.e., structural and/or functional) to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution, preferably towards an allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunbar (US Publication Number 2022/0010637 A1; hereinafter “Dunbar”).
In regard to claim 1, Dunbar discloses: A method (abstract) comprising:
obtaining, via one or more pressure measurement devices (202), measurements of a pressure of a fluid (312), the pressure changing in response to movement of one or more elements (e.g., 314, 316) of a downhole tool (i.e., comprising 116 — as shown in figures 1 & 3) caused by a force exerted by a subsurface formation on the one or more elements (Examiner notes that the paragraph [0023] cites the following: “It should be noted that the drilling fluid may be loaded with drilling cuttings and other particles which may plug and/or damage pressure tube 310 and/or first transducer 202 and second transducer 204. To prevent drilling cuttings and other particles from damaging pressure tube 310 and/or first transducer 202 and second transducer 204, a floating ball 314 may be disposed in pressure tube 310”. With that being said, Examiner notes that since the cuttings are a direct form of the surrounding subterranean formation 120, the limitation is met, as the fluid comprising cuttings and particles causes a force to be exerted on the elements), wherein the fluid is hydraulically isolated from fluids external to the downhole tool (paragraph [0024, 0028]); and
determining the force applied to the one or more elements based on the pressure of the fluid (paragraphs [0020-0029]).
In regard to claim 2, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a fluid passage (310) filled with the fluid (abstract, paragraphs [0020-0029]), and wherein the fluid passage hydraulically couples a first element (e.g., 314 connected to 202) of the one or more elements and a first pressure measurement device (202) of the one or more pressure measurement devices (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 3, Dunbar further discloses: obtaining measurements of the fluid in the fluid passage when a force is applied to the first element, wherein the force causes a squeeze in the fluid in the fluid passage (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 4, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a fluid passage (310) filled with the fluid, and wherein a first pressure measurement device (202) of the one or more pressure measurement devices is hydraulically coupled with a plurality of the elements, via a fluid passage (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 5, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the one or more pressure measurement devices include a pressure transducer (paragraphs [0020-0029]).
In regard to claim 6, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the one or more elements are configured to shift radially towards and away from a central axis of the downhole tool (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 7, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the fluid includes hydraulic fluid (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 8, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a drill bit (116 — paragraphs [0010-0012, 0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 11, Dunbar further discloses: performing a wellbore operation (e.g., pumping drilling fluid downhole, drilling, etc.) based on the force applied to the one or more elements (paragraphs [0010-0012, 0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 12, Dunbar discloses: An apparatus (as shown in at least figures 1 & 3) comprising:
one or more elements (e.g., 314, 316) of a downhole tool (i.e., comprising 116 — as shown in figure 1), wherein the downhole tool is positioned in a wellbore (118) formed in a subsurface formation (120 — paragraphs [0010-0012, 0020-0029]); and
one or more pressure measurement devices (202) configured to obtain measurements of a pressure of a fluid (312), the pressure changing in response to movement of the one or more elements caused by force exerted by the subsurface formation on the one or more elements (as shown in figures 1 & 3 | Examiner notes that the paragraph [0023] cites the following: “It should be noted that the drilling fluid may be loaded with drilling cuttings and other particles which may plug and/or damage pressure tube 310 and/or first transducer 202 and second transducer 204. To prevent drilling cuttings and other particles from damaging pressure tube 310 and/or first transducer 202 and second transducer 204, a floating ball 314 may be disposed in pressure tube 310”. With that being said, Examiner notes that since the cuttings are a direct form of the surrounding subterranean formation 120, the limitation is met, as the fluid comprising cuttings and particles causes a force to be exerted on the elements), wherein the force applied to the one or more elements is determined based on the pressure of the fluid (paragraphs [0020-0029]), and wherein the fluid is hydraulically isolated from fluids external to the downhole tool (paragraph [0024, 0028])
In regard to claim 13, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a fluid passage (310) filled with the fluid (abstract, paragraphs [0020-0029]), and wherein the fluid passage hydraulically couples a first element (e.g., 314 connected to 202) of the one or more elements and a first pressure measurement device (202) of the one or more pressure measurement devices (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 14, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a fluid passage (310) filled with the fluid, and wherein a first pressure measurement device (202) of the one or more pressure measurement devices is hydraulically coupled with a plurality of the one or more elements, via a fluid passage (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 15, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the one or more pressure measurement devices include a pressure transducer (paragraphs [0020-0029]).
In regard to claim 16, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the one or more elements are configured to shift radially towards and away from a central axis of the downhole tool (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 17, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a drill bit (116 — paragraphs [0010-0012, 0020-0029] and figure 3).
In regard to claim 19, Dunbar discloses: A system (abstract and figures 1 & 3) comprising:
a downhole tool (i.e., comprising 116 — as shown in figure 1) to be positioned in a wellbore (118) formed in a subsurface formation (120 — paragraphs [0010-0012, 0020-0029]);
one or more elements (e.g., 314, 316) positioned on the downhole tool (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 3); and
one or more pressure measurement devices (202) configured to obtain measurements of a pressure of a fluid (312), the pressure changing in response to the movement of the one or more elements caused by a force exerted by the subsurface formation on the one or more elements (as shown in figures 1 & 3 | Examiner notes that the paragraph [0023] cites the following: “It should be noted that the drilling fluid may be loaded with drilling cuttings and other particles which may plug and/or damage pressure tube 310 and/or first transducer 202 and second transducer 204. To prevent drilling cuttings and other particles from damaging pressure tube 310 and/or first transducer 202 and second transducer 204, a floating ball 314 may be disposed in pressure tube 310”. With that being said, Examiner notes that since the cuttings are a direct form of the surrounding subterranean formation 120, the limitation is met, as the fluid comprising cuttings and particles causes a force to be exerted on the elements), wherein the force applied to the one or more elements is determined based on the pressure of the fluid (paragraphs [0020-0029]), and wherein the fluid is hydraulically isolated from fluids external to the downhole tool (paragraph [0024, 0028]).
In regard to claim 20, Dunbar further discloses: wherein the downhole tool includes a fluid passage (310) filled with the fluid (abstract, paragraphs [0020-0029]), and wherein the fluid passage hydraulically couples a first element (e.g., 314 connected to 202) of the one or more elements and a first pressure measurement device (202) of the one or more pressure measurement devices (paragraphs [0020-0029] and figure 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.
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) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar (US Publication Number 2022/0010637 A1; hereinafter “Dunbar”) in view of Thomas (US Publication Number 2017/0275951 A1; hereinafter “Thomas”).
In regard to claim 9, Dunbar discloses claim 1 above.
However, Dunbar is silent in regard to: wherein the one or more elements include a button, a cutter, or any combination thereof.
Nonetheless, Thomas teaches a downhole drilling assembly (abstract and figure 1), similar to that of Dunbar. Thomas teaches that pressure measurement devices (e.g., pressure transducer 410) can be coupled to elements, such as, cutters (428) — paragraphs [0041-0044].
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the pressure sensing system/mechanism, as taught by Dunbar, with that corresponding to the pressure of a cutting element, as taught by Thomas, to yield the predictable result of allowing an alternative way of controlling “[...] the amount that the cutting elements of the drilling tool cut into a geological formation” (paragraph [0004] of Thomas). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 18, Dunbar discloses claim 12 above.
However, Dunbar is silent in regard to: wherein the one or more elements include a button, a cutter, or any combination thereof.
Nonetheless, Thomas teaches a downhole drilling assembly (abstract and figure 1), similar to that of Dunbar. Thomas teaches that pressure measurement devices (e.g., pressure transducer 410) can be coupled to elements, such as, cutters (428) — paragraphs [0041-0044].
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the pressure sensing system/mechanism, as taught by Dunbar, with that corresponding to the pressure of a cutting element, as taught by Thomas, to yield the predictable result of allowing an alternative way of controlling “[...] the amount that the cutting elements of the drilling tool cut into a geological formation” (paragraph [0004] of Thomas). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar (US Publication Number 2022/0010637 A1; hereinafter “Dunbar”) in view of Thomas (US Publication Number 2017/0275951 A1; hereinafter “Thomas”).
In regard to claim 10, Dunbar discloses collecting data (e.g., pressure data) from the downhole tool using sensor(s) (paragraph [0016, 0018, 0021).
However, Dunbar is silent in regard to: designing one or more additional downhole tools based on the force applied to the one or more elements.
Nonetheless, Hall cites: “[...] to take advantage of the several advances in the design of various tools and techniques for oil and gas exploration, it would be beneficial to have real time data such as temperature, pressure, inclination, salinity, etc.” (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the collection of the pressure data gathered, as taught by Dunbar, to be used in designing additional downhole tools, as taught by Hall, to allow “[...] for successful oil, gas, and geothermal well exploration and production” (paragraph [0004] of Hall).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights