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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the tool inserted and the window in the connector housing recited in claim 5,
the sleeve on the connector body recited in claim 9, and
the lever recited in claim 10 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “the inner tube” should read -- an inner tube -- and in line 8, “an inner tube” should read -- the inner tube –
In claim 1, line 8, “a groove” should read -- the groove --.
In claim 2, “the latch assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 3, “the latch assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “the plunger” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “the grippers” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “the force” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “the tool” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, “the connector housing” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 6, “the spring force” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 9, “the connector body” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4, which is an independent claim, is rejected under 112(b) because:
“releasing the force on the plunger” is unclear. the claim does not identify which force is being released or who/what is releasing the force. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed method cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For the purpose of examination, it would be assumed to be releasing/removing the biasing force of the spring on the plunger.
The claim further recites “removing the inner tube from the latch assembly”. It is unclear as to whether the claimed step requires merely disconnecting the inner tube from the latch assembly or removing the inner tube from a wellbore. For the purpose of examination, it would be assumed to be “disconnection”.
In addition, the claim also recites “removing the tool from the connector housing”. This is indefinite. The claim fails to provide antecedent basis or otherwise identify the recited “tool”, such that it is unclear what structure is being removed from the connector housing. For examination purposes, “the tool” will be assumed to be the inner tube
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O. Colquitt (U.S. 2,682,388).
Regarding claim 1, O. Colquitt discloses a quick-release inner tube connection (see figs. 5-6) for core retrieval during wireline core drilling (refer to col. 1, lines 1-19), comprising:
a connector housing (11, figs. 5-6);
grippers (18) within the connector housing (11) providing mechanical interference with a groove (20) in the inner tube (13);
a plunger (21) controlling the position of the grippers (18; see figs. 5-6 and refer to col. 3, lines 16-38);
a spring (24) applying force on the plunger (21; as shown in figs. 5-6); and
an inner tube (13) with a groove (20) to accept the grippers (18; as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, O. Colquitt discloses wherein the grippers (18) are configured to extend into the groove (20) of the inner tube (13), preventing separation from the latch assembly (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, O. Colquitt discloses wherein depressing the plunger (21; as shown in fig. 6) allows retraction of the grippers (28), facilitating disconnection of the inner tube (13) from the latch assembly (as shown in fig. 6. Also refer to col. 3, lines 16-38).
Regarding claim 4, O. Colquitt discloses a method for connecting and disconnecting an inner tube (13; see figs. 5-6) from a latch assembly during wireline core drilling (examiner notes that no wireline or features of a wireline has been claimed or shown on the figures), comprising:
depressing the plunger (21) to retract the grippers (18; see fig. 6);
removing the inner tube (13) from the latch assembly (as shown in fig. 6; examiner has interpreted “removing” to mean that they are disconnected. This interpretation is consistent with applicant’s invention);
releasing the force on the plunger (as shown from fig. 5-6, the biasing force of the spring 24 is removed and the plunger is allowed to move downward; also refer to the 112b rejection above); and
removing the tool (13; as shown in fig. 6; refer to the 112b rejection above) from the connector housing (10, 11).
Regarding claim 5, O. Colquitt discloses wherein the depression of the plunger (21) is achieved by inserting a tool (29) through a window (opening in 10 through which 29 enters. Note that the claimed window is not shown in the drawings) in the connector housing (10, 11) and applying pressure on the plunger (as shown in fig. 6; also refer to col. 3, lines 26-38).
Regarding claim 6, O. Colquitt discloses wherein the grippers (18) are retained in an extended position (as shown in fig. 5) by the spring force (force of spring 24) when the plunger (21) is not depressed (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, O. Colquitt discloses a quick-release inner tube connection system (see figs. 5-6) for core retrieval during wireline core drilling (refer to col. 1, lines 1-19; examiner notes that no wireline or features of a wireline has been claimed or shown on the figures), comprising:
means for extending and retracting grippers (18) within a connector housing (11, figs. 5-6);
means (“plunger 21”) for controlling the position of the grippers (18);
means (“ball 29”) for applying force on the controlling means (“plunger 21”); and
an inner tube (13) with a groove (20) to accept the grippers (18; as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, O. Colquitt discloses wherein the controlling means comprises a plunger (21; see figs. 5-6 and refer to col. 3, lines 16-38).
Regarding claim 9, O. Colquitt discloses wherein the means for extending and retracting grippers includes a sleeve (22) on the outside of the connector body (23).
Regarding claim 10, O. Colquitt discloses wherein the means for applying an outside force to disconnect the joint comprises a lever (29; note that the claimed “lever” is not shown and the shape is not described in the specification. In fact, it is only mentioned once in the entire specification).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iondov (U.S. 9,528,337 B2), Drenth et al. (U.S. 8,485,280 B2), Rector (U.S. 5,127,482), and J.H. Koontz (U.S. 3,225,845).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights