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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of all claims would not create an undue burden on the examiner as independent claims 1 and 13 both are related to automated assembly of a tool string and claim 13 has been amended to include all of the limitations of independent claim 1. This is not found persuasive because although the claim method claim 13 includes all of limitations of apparatus claim 1, never the less, the apparatus of claim 1 can still be used in a materially different process such as one that does not require the step of conveying the mid-assembly tool string with a conveyor to make room for another component as required by amended claim 13. Furthermore, Applicant does not provide any evidence that there is no serious search burden to examine all instant claims. The examiner has clearly articulated that different classifications between groups, provided evidence that there would be a serious search burden between the groups. In addition, Applicant cannot overcome the fact that searching the method claims is not required for the product/apparatus claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ejector sled” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to because of the poor quality of some figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in a narrative form (i.e., multiple short sentences) and appears to be a verbatim of the claim language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 1, the limitation of “wherein the pod is a wheeled trailer” may need to be amended to - - wherein the mobile pod is a wheeled trailer - - for a better consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a tool string assembler in claim 1, an ejector sled in claim 1, end cap remover in claim 2, an assembly sled in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the disclosure including the specification and drawings reveals the following:
Figure 2 shows a tool string assembler 212 (paragraph [0019]); The tool string assembler 212 is configured to sequentially connect tool string components such as a top connector, the perforating guns 206, a setting tool, or a release tool (paragraph [0021]); Once the mid-assembly tool string 214 is established on the conveyor, the next component, such as a perforating gun 206, may be delivered to the tool string assembler 212. The tool string assembler 212 may clamp an end of the mid-assembly tool string 214 so that the next component can be attached (paragraph [0022]).
A user 404 may program the system to assemble a predetermined number and type of tool string components in order to form a completed tool string. For example, a completed tool string may include one or more of a top connector, perforating gun(s), setting tool, and or release tool. It will be understood that the tool string components are not limited to this list and other tool string components may be used as appropriate. Once the tool string assembler 212 attaches the predetermined number and type of tool string components to the mid-assembly tool string 214, the mid-assembly tool string 214 becomes a completed tool string 220. To achieve the completed tool string 220, the system may iteratively perform steps of the receiving a tool string component, using the tool string assembler 212 to couple the tool string component to a mid-assembly tool string, and the conveying the mid-assembly tool string until the completed tool string 220 is achieved (paragraph [0025]).
An ejector sled 306 may be coupled to an ejector rail 308 and configured to push a bottommost completed tool string 220 out of the pod through a tool string rejection port 402 (FIG. 4, paragraph [0024]). However, there is no additional support for the structure of ejector sled 306 and Figure 4 only depicts a port 402 and Figure 3 only depicts an unrecognizable feature labeled with reference numeral 306.
An end cap remover 210 (Fig. 2) may be configured to secure the perforating gun 206 and remove the end caps from the perforating gun 206 (paragraph [0019]). However, there is no additional support for the structure of end cap remover and Figure 2 only depicts an unrecognizable feature labeled with reference numeral 210.
An assembly sled 302 (see FIG. 3) may be coupled to the mid-assembly tool string 214 and may be connected to an assembly rail 304 and may be configured to pull the mid-assembly tool string 214 along the conveyor 216 to make for the next component in the tool assembler 212 (paragraph [0021]). In an exemplary embodiment, the assembly sled 302 may include an electrical tester. The electrical tester may be in electrical communication with a top connector of the mid- assembly tool string 214. The electrical tester may be configured to test electrical connections between each of the components in the mid-assembly tool string 214. For example, the electrical tester may be configured to test line-in, line-out, and ground of each component as it is attached to the mid-assembly tool string 214. If any components fail the electrical testing, the mid-assembly tool string 214 can be removed from production so that a faulty tool string is not deployed to the wellbore (paragraph [0023]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, lines 6-8 recites the limitation of “a tool string assembler that is configured to couple the perforating gun to the mid-assembly tool string.” However, the disclosure is devoid of any support for structure and mechanism of the tool string assembler that are used to attach and couple the perforating gun to the mid-assembly tool string.
In claim 1, lines 13-14 recites the limitation “an ejector sled provided in the pod interior and configured to eject the completed tool string through a tool string ejection port to an exterior of the pod.” The specification provides no support as to the structure and mechanism of the sled that would eject the completed tool string to the outside of the pod.
In claim 2, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “an end cap remover provided in the pod interior and configured to receive a perforating gun from the magazine and remove the an end cap from the perforating gun.” The specification provides no support as to the structure and mechanism of the end cap remover that would allow the remover to remove the end caps from the perforating guns.
In claim 3, lines 2-3 recites the limitation “an assembly sled coupled to the mid-assembly tool string and configured to move the mid-assembly tool string along the conveyor.” The specification provides support for the assembly sled to include an electrical tester that is configured to test electrical connections between each of the components in the mid-assembly tool string 214, however, there is no other support for the assembly sled to be configured to move the mid-assembly tool string along the conveyor as required by claim 3.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 6-8 recites that a tool string assembler is configured to couple a perforating gun and a mid-assembly tool string. In addition, lines 9-10 recites the limitation “a conveyor provided in the pod interior and configured to movably support the mid-assembly tool string.” Furthermore, lines 11-12 recites the limitation “a ramp provided in the pod interior and configured to receive and store a completed tool string from the conveyor.” As such, it is unclear if the conveyor configured to movably support only the mid-assembly tool string or the combination of the mid-assembly tool string with the perforating gun coupled to it. In addition, it is unclear what exactly is the difference between a mid-assembly tool string, a mid-assembly tool string coupled with a perforating gun and a completed tool string. It is unclear if the complete tool string includes an explosive element or not and if not, then how could be called a complete perforating gun. Furthermore, it is unclear which element of the system actually forms the completed tool string as the claim appears to be unclear as how and where a mid-assembly tool string becomes a completed tool string.
Claim 1, lines 6-8 recites a tool string assembler that is configured to couple the perforating gun to the mid-assembly tool string. However, it is unclear how exactly a tool string assembler used to attach and couple the perforating gun to the mid-assembly tool string.
Claim 1, lines 13-14, recites the limitation “ejector sled” configured to eject the completed tool string through the ejection port. However, it is unclear how exactly the ejector sled with unidentified structure and mechanism, attached to an ejector rail, is able to push a completed tool string outside of the pod.
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “an end cap remover” that is configured to receive a perforating gun from the magazine and remove the an end cap from the perforating gun. However, it is unclear how exactly the end cap remover with unidentified structure and mechanism is able to receive a perforating gun from the magazine and remove an end cap from the perforating gun.
Claim 3, lines 1-2 recites that an assembly sled is coupled to the mid-assembly tool string and is configured to move the mid-assembly tool string along the conveyor. However, it is unclear if the assembly sled is configured to move the combination of the mid-assembly tool string and the perforating gun or only the mid-assembly tool string. Furthermore, claim 1 which claim 3 directly depends from already recites that the conveyor is configured to movably support the mid-assembly tool string which implies that it moves the mid-assembly tool string and as such, it is unclear how the movements of the mid-assembly tool string by the conveyor and assembly sled are different from one another. Furthermore, it is unclear how an electrical tester which is included in the assembly sled could be used to move the mid-assembly tool string along the conveyor.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the assembly sled" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, lines 2-3 recites the limitation of “to receive perforating guns from the exterior of the pod” and “store the perforating guns in the magazine.” However, claim 1 which claim 5 directly depends from already recites “a magazine is configured to hold a plurality of perforating guns” in lines 4-5. Therefore, it is unclear if the perforating guns in claim 1 and 5 are the same or different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8 and 11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker (US 7,789,006).
As applied to claim 1, Walker teaches a system for automated assembly of a tool string, the system comprising:
a pod defining a pod interior (storage areas 232 and 254 of facility 210, col. 5, lines 4-8, Figs. 2, 2a);
a magazine provided in the pod interior and configured to hold a plurality of perforating guns (magazines 255a, 255b for storing a plurality of explosive components/shaped charges (col. 5, lines 4-8, Figs. 2, 2a);
a tool string assembler provided in the pod interior and configured to receive a perforating gun of the plurality of perforating guns from the magazine and couple (loading) the perforating gun (plurality of shaped charges not shown) to a mid-assembly tool string (combination of tubular strip 202 and outer housing 200, col. 10, lines 13-67, Figs. 2e-2f and 2h-2i);
a conveyor (rollers 238, Figs. 2a-2b) provided in the pod interior and configured to movably support the mid-assembly tool string (combination of 200/202);
a ramp (rack 242 and rollers 240, col. 10, lines 15-16, Fig. 2m) provided in the pod interior and configured to receive and store a completed tool string from the conveyor; and
an ejector sled (table 256 with rollers 282 provided in the pod interior and configured to eject the completed tool string through a tool string ejection port (249, Figs. 2p-2q) to an exterior of the pod (col. 6, lines 56-62).
Walker teaches that the movement of the gun component placed on rollers can be slid on the rollers (col. 6, lines 16-28) which, considering broadest reasonable claim interpretation, the movement of component on table 256 on rollers 282 reads on the claimed “ejector sled”).
As applied to claim 3, Walker teaches a system for automated assembly of a tool string including an assembly sled (shelf 234b, Fig. 2a) coupled to the mid-assembly tool string and configured to move the mid-assembly tool string along the conveyor (col. 10, lines 6-8).
As applied to claims 5-8, Walker teaches a system for automated assembly of a tool string including a perforating gun insertion port (234 or 211, Fig, 2c), a top connector insertion port (234 or 211, Fig, 2c), a setting tool insertion port (234 or 211, Fig, 2c), and a release tool insertion port (234 or 211, Fig, 2c) that are configured to receive perforating guns from the exterior of the pod and store the perforating guns in the magazine (as in claim 5), configured to receive a top connector from exterior of the pod and deliver the top connector to the tool string assembler (as in claim 6), configured to receive a setting tool from the exterior of the pod and deliver the setting tool to the tool setting assembler (as in claim 7) and configured to receive a release tool from the exterior of the pod and deliver the release tool to the tool string assembler (as in claim 8, see col. 4, lines 34-35, col. 5, lines 52).
As applied to claim 11, Walker teaches the invention cited including a system for automated assembly of a tool string wherein the pod is mobile (skid arrangement 218, col. 4, lines 51-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 7,789,006) in view of Wallace et al. (US 11,457,144, hereinafter “Wallace”).
As applied to claim 2, Walker teaches the invention cited including a system for automated assembly of a tool string including the system configured to have a perforating gun with a housing (200) which is reassembled and sealed as by use of end caps (not shown) to arrive at a loaded perforating gun (207, col. 9, lines 60-62). Although, Walker teaches that the housing is reassembled including installing end caps (col. 11, lines 19-21) which implies that the end caps were at some point removed in order to be reassembled but does not explicitly teach the system includes an end cap remover to remove an end cap from a perforating gun.
However, Wallace teaches a method and a system wherein a an interior space of a casing 11 is accessed by removing (implying by use of an end cap remover) a casing end cap 11a which is removably coupled to a body of the casing 11 (col. 5, lines 28-33, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Walker with an end cap remover, as taught by Wallace, as an effective means of allowing the removal of end caps of the perforating guns to access the interior for loading the charged explosives followed by installing back the end caps allowing the complete perforating gun to be moved to the field location for later use.
Claim(s) 4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 7,789,006) in view of Brooks et al. (US 6,148,263, hereinafter “Brooks”).
As applied to claim 4, Walker teaches the invention cited including a system for automated assembly of a tool string including the system having an assembly sled assembling the mid-assembly tool string (intended use limitation) but does not explicitly teach the assembly sled of the system includes an electrical tester which is configured to test electrical connections within the mid-assembly tool string including a top connector.
Brooks teaches a system used with operating in downhole operation wherein prior to deploying the tool string (i.e., perforating gun) a test is performed on the tool string to check the electrical connection between the tool components to verify the electrical system is with no current leaks (col. 2, lines 39-51, col. 4, lines 12-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Walker with an electrical tester for the assembly sled configured to be in electrical connection with a connector of the tool string, as taught by Brooks, as an effective means of checking the electrical integrity of the electrical system of the completed tool string prior to deployment into the field.
Claim(s) 9 and 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 7,789,006) in view of Paul et al. (US 9,513,204, hereinafter “Paul”).
As applied to claims 9 and 10, Walker teaches the invention cited including a system for automated assembly of a tool string wherein the system comprises a pod comprising a door. However, Walker does not explicitly teach the door has a safety feature and configured to shut down operation if the door is opened (as in claim 9) and that the pod is climate controlled and sealed from the exterior of the pod (as in claim 10).
Paul teaches a system comprising a room housing as part of an air-insulated substation with an operation including at least one high-voltage electrical apparatus accessible by humans wherein safety measures are implemented including automated shut-down of the radiation source in case the door is open in order to protect the humans (abstract, col. 11, lines 49-52, claim 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a shut-down feature in case the pod door is open and to provide a sealed climate control environment for the pod, as taught by Paul, as an effective means of controlling the inside environment of the pod from outside environment and to protect humans in the proximity of the assembly line.
Claim(s) 12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 7,789,006) in view of Golden et al. (US 10,612,678, hereinafter “Golden”).
As applied to claim 12, Walker teaches the invention cited including a system for automated assembly of a tool string including a mobile pod on the skid. Walker further teaches the assembly facility (210) may be constructed as a stationary location or transportable by use of a skid arrangement (218, col. 4, lines 52-54) but does not explicitly teach the pod is a wheeled trailer.
Golden teaches a mobile system used with a hydraulic fracturing operation or downhole hydraulic jetting operation in an oil and gas well environment (col. 1, lines 49-51 and 56-62) wherein the assembly housing system is moved on a skid on a trailer or truck bed (col. 22, lines 15-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a wheeled trailer to the system of Walker, as taught by Golden, as an effective means of transporting the system to a desired location for further operational use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goodman et al. (US 7,762,331) teaches assembling a loading tube for a perforating gun for use in a perforating system. At a first location, e.g., a shop, which is not the location at which perforating operations will be conducted, the loading tube is completely assembled. The completely assembled loading tubing is then transported to a second location where perforating operations are to be conducted (abstract).
Bryant et al. (US 20240300059A1) teaches a wellbore gun assembly which includes a chuck assembly for assembling a wellbore gun. The chuck assembly includes a chuck housing, a rotating gun chuck, and an axial gun chuck. The gun chucks have chuck jaws radially movable about a hole in the gun chucks to selectively grip a portion of the wellbore gun. The holes of the gun chucks are aligned to define a passage for receiving the wellbore gun therethrough. The rotating gun chuck is rotationally positioned about the axial gun chuck to selectively rotate the portion of the wellbore gun as the axial gun chuck moves axially about the axial gun chuck whereby the portions of the wellbore gun are threadedly connected together. The chuck assembly also includes a gantry loader loads gun components onto a feed assembly, and the feed assembly feeds gun components into the chuck assembly (abstract).
Bryant et al. (US 20240060369A1) teaches an integrated tool processing system and a wellsite monitoring system for a wellsite. The integrated tool processing system includes a tool assembler, a tool lift, and a tool transporter. The tool assembler includes a tool conveyor and a gun builder. The tool lift is connected by a tool stager to the tool assembler. The tool lift includes a lift base to receive the downhole tool and a lift arm to lift the downhole tool. The tool transporter includes a vehicle and a boom for connection to the downhole tool. The vehicle and the boom carry the downhole tool into position for delivery at the wellsite. The wellsite monitoring system includes wellsite sensors to collect wellsite data, wellsite monitors to receive and analyze the wellsite data, and a central station to collect and further analyze the wellsite data and to operate the tool processing system based on the combined wellsite data (abstract).
Hudak (CA 2699869 A1) teaches a perforating gun loading bay includes a loading area and a separate component storage area. The perforating gun loading area also includes racks and a table that permit an in-line loading operation such that the gun housing and loaded gun need not be moved out of a linear path from introduction to the bay to unloading from the bay. The racks and the table may be position in axial alignment and may include low friction members to permit axial sliding motion along the racks and the table. A method for using the loading bay permits in-line handling. A perforating gun loading table includes low friction members permitting axial movement of perforating gun components therealong and low friction members, permitting rotational movement of perforating gun components along their long axis. The perforating gun loading table includes a control system for selecting the low friction member that is positioned to engage the perforating gun component on the table (abstract, Figs. 2-3e).
Beyers (WO 9802615) teaches a mobile work station comprising a wheeled chassis (6, 7, Figs. 1-2) and a magazine (15) adapted to hold a plurality of workpieces (16) and an assembler (a welding station comprising of a plurality of welding devices 30, Figs. 5-6, abstract, claims 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 01/04/2025