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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “is no long in line” should most likely be “is no longer in line”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 20130126186 to Kallal.
Regarding claim 1, Kallal discloses a method for moving wellbore tubulars into or out of a wellhead, the method comprising, positioning a travelling slip assembly 140 in line with a center of the wellhead (figs. 1 and 11), feeding a tubular through the travelling slip assembly; applying a downforce or an upforce using the travelling slip assembly to push the tubular into or pull the tubular out of the wellhead; and retracting the travelling slip assembly so that it is no longer in line with the center of the wellhead when not in use (figs. 2 and 9; paragraphs 0038-0050).
Regarding claims 2-3, the method of claim 1 wherein the positioning or the retracting or both comprise/consist of lateral movement of the travelling slip assembly (comparison of fig. 1 to fig. 2 shows that the slip 140 has travelled laterally to the right of the center line).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1 further comprising installing a portable downforce system 100a comprising the travelling slip assembly to a mast 20 of a service rig before positioning the tubular in line with the center of the wellhead (figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4 further comprising uninstalling the cables of the portable downforce system when not in use (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1 wherein the wellhead is associated with a wellbore having a wellbore trajectory, having a string of wellbore tubulars therein, wherein a resistance force resisting movement of the string of wellbore tubulars is substantially equal to or exceeds the force of gravity urging movement of the string of tubulars into the wellbore (paragraph 0052).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallal in view of US 20160230522 to Daniel.
Kallal teaches the wellbore and wellhead from method claims 1 and 6 above, but it is not specifically taught that the wellbore trajectory comprises a shallow horizontal well, having a relatively shorter substantially vertical section and a relatively longer horizontal or deviated section, or that the wellhead is associated with a steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) well.
Daniel teaches a wellbore and wellhead similar to that of Kallal, wherein it is further taught that the wellbore trajectory comprises a shallow horizontal well, having a relatively shorter substantially vertical section and a relatively longer horizontal or deviated section, and that the wellhead is associated with a steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) well (fig. 7B and the beginning of paragraph 0063 referring to the prior art shallow well and steam injection). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a shallow horizontal well and SAGD as taught by Daniel as the wellbore and production method of Kallal. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a shallow horizontal well and SAGD were well-known methods for wellbore construction and production as taught by Daniel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallal in view of US 3960360 to Elliston.
Kallal teaches the wellhead from method claim 1, but it is not specifically taught that a pressure at the wellhead has been substantially equalized by a kill fluid such that the pressure is substantially reduced to or is substantially zero.
Elliston teaches a wellhead 110 similar to that of Kallal, wherein it is further taught that a pressure at the wellhead has been substantially equalized by a kill fluid such that the pressure is substantially reduced to or is substantially zero (col. 1, lines 27-35). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a kill fluid as taught by Elliston in the method of Kallal. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a kill fluid is a well-known means for maintaining a sufficient column weight of fluid to resist the pressure from within the well which is tending to force the tubing out, as taught by Elliston.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on from 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE BOMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7026. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EST M-Th.
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.
/SHANE BOMAR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3674