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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Poor line/image quality. The lines are faint and “blurry” and will no reproduce well.
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 § 112
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 5 and 9 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.
Claim 5, dependent from claim 1 recites “the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail- safe solenoid valve” which is not found in claim 1, but claim 2, and thus lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear if the dependance is a typo, or if the valve is the typo, as claim 1 recites “a 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve”.
Claim 9, depended from claim 8, which has two different limitation with “wherein said at least one arm is arranged in at least one pair of arms having one of:” This limitation is interpreted as only requiring one of the two options. Claim 9 recites “wherein the common pivot point type has a single actuator for a pair of arms and the axially shifted type has an individual actuator for each arm. “ which appears to cover both of the cases from the parent claim. This makes the claim unclear, as both options are not required in the parent claim, but appear to be in the child.
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 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1as being anticipated by US 20190316433 A1 to Schroit.
Regarding claim 1: Schroit discloses 1. (Currently Amended) An independent or paired arm control system (18, shown in Figs. 5, 6 and 23, [0017], [0087-0093]) configured for a wellbore tractor configured to be run in a borehole penetrating a formation, the control system comprising:
- a 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve 23 [0088] arranged in a drive module of the wellbore tractor, the drive module having at least one arm with at least one wheel or belt,
- a hydraulic cylinder-piston assembly (26,27) comprising a hydraulic cylinder with an actuator piston and a retraction spring arranged therein, the hydraulic cylinder-piston assembly arranged within the drive module (“actuation cylinders” 26,27 shown have a return spring and are interpreted as meeting the limitation- see also [0106),
- a hydraulic pressure line 15 connected to a hydraulic pump 9 configured to provide high pressure by means of a hydraulic fluid, [0085]
- a return hydraulic line 28 connected to a reservoir configured for containing the hydraulic fluid (Fig 5),
- a control port of the 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve is connected to the hydraulic cylinder of the hydraulic cylinder-piston assembly, a return port of the 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve is connected to the return hydraulic line, and a pressure port of the 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve is connected to the hydraulic pressure line (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 4: Schroit discloses 4. (Currently Amended) The independent or paired arm control system according to claim 1, wherein the hydraulic pump is driven by an electrical motor 8.
Regarding claim 5: . Schroit discloses a check valve 25 arranged in the hydraulic pressure line 15 and between the hydraulic pump 9 and the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail- safe solenoid valve. (Figure 23)
Regarding claim 6: Schroit discloses 6. (Currently Amended) The independent or paired arm control system according to laim1, further comprising
a pressure/temperature sensor (72,73) connected to the hydraulic pressure line and configured to monitor the pressure in the hydraulic pressure line. ([0051],[0067][0072],[0106])
Regarding claim 7: Schroit discloses 7. (Currently Amended) The independent or paired arm control system according to claim1,further comprising
a pressure compensation unit comprising an oil sump reservoir, a spring activated piston and a ventilation port. ( Figures 5,6 and 23 each show a sump reservoir with a vent, and it is noted as the sump line has “low pressure ambient hydraulic fluid” [0088], additionally figure 23 shows element 71 which is a high-pressure accumulator having a piston with a spring. These elements taken together can be considered as “a pressure compensation unit” )
Regarding claim 8: Schroit discloses 8. (Currently Amended) The independent or paired arm control system according to claim1,
wherein said at least one arm is arranged in at least one pair of arms having one of:
i) a common pivot point and
ii) individual pivot points axially shifted in near proximity. (Figs. 15 and 21)
Regarding claim 9: Schroit discloses 9. (Currently Amended) The independent or paired arm control system according to claim 8,
wherein the common pivot point type has a single actuator for a pair of arms and the axially shifted type has an individual actuator for each arm. [0013], [0017]
Regarding claim 10: Schroit discloses 10. (Currently Amended) A wellbore tractor (title abstract) configured to be run in a borehole penetrating a formation, wherein the wellbore tractor comprises an independent or paired arm control system according to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190316433 A1 to Schroit as applied above, in view of US 20020066574 A1 to Leismer.
Regarding claim 2: Schroit discloses a 3-port/2-way solenoid valve 23 however fails to disclose it is normally closed or wherein a control port of the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail-safe solenoid valve is connected to the 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve via the pressure port of the 3-port/2- way normally open solenoid valve; a return port of the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail- safe solenoid valve is connected to the return hydraulic line; and a pressure port of the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail-safe solenoid valve is connected to the hydraulic pressure line having the hydraulic pump.
Leismer teaches the concept of a fail-safe valve 11 [0062] between a pressure source and downhole devices.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Schroit to include a normally closed a 3-port/2-way solenoid valve in the control system wherein a control port of the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail-safe solenoid valve is connected to the 3-port/2-way normally open solenoid valve via the pressure port of the 3-port/2- way normally open solenoid valve; a return port of the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail- safe solenoid valve is connected to the return hydraulic line; and a pressure port of the 3-port/2-way normally closed fail-safe solenoid valve is connected to the hydraulic pressure line having the hydraulic pump., in view of the concept of placing a fail-safe valve in line of a hydraulic circuit, as taught by Leismer, so as to provide a safety where “no pressurized fluid would be permitted to pass through the valve 11 to any downhole tool connected to the first or second outlet ports” [0062] in the case of a line rupture.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190316433 A1 to Schroit as applied above, and further in view of US 20180202269 A1 to Wensrich
Regarding claim 3: . Schroit discloses the claimed invention except explicitly a pressure safety valve connected between the hydraulic pressure line and the return hydraulic line.
Wensrich teaches a hydraulic control circuit for a wellbore tool with a pressure safety valve 110 connected between the hydraulic pressure line and the return hydraulic line. (Fig.9)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Schroit to include a pressure safety valve between his hydraulic pressure line and a return line, in view of Wensrich, in order “regulate the fluid pressure in the hydraulic control system to a pre-selected maximum pressure.”[0095]. This would amount to no more than use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Regarding claim 7: While the examiner contends that Schroit discloses claim 7, see above, if one where to disagree
Wensrich teaches a hydraulic control circuit with a sump balanced to wellbore pressure and with a compensation piston (Figure 9, 111,112,113, [0095])
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Schroit to include a pressure compensation unit comprising an oil sump reservoir, a spring activated piston and a ventilation port. , in view of Wensrich, in order to insure that that fluid returns to the pump.. This would amount to no more than use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190219072 A1 teaches a downhole tractor with a hydraulic circuit with three port valves.
US 20160290047 A1 teaches a downhole tractor with a hydraulic control.
US 5794703 A teaches a wellbore tractor with a hydraulic control circuit and three port valves
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights