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 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 11, 12, 14, 18, and 22 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one flushing channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 8 does not provide the proper basis, only claim 10 has the proper basis.
Claim 11 also recites the limitation "the at least two conveying channels" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 10 does not provide the proper basis, only claim 8 has the proper basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vacuum insulation space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 10 does not provide the proper basis, only claim 13 has the proper basis.
Claim 14 also recites the limitation "the at least one flushing channel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 13 does not provide the proper basis, only claim 10 has the proper basis.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first expandable balloon" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 does not provide the proper basis, only claim 15 has the proper basis.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the control unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any claim that depends from an indefinite claim is considered to be equally indefinite at this time.
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 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 20040244970 to Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a drilling robot (330) for drilling a borehole (134) comprises: a movement unit (320/325) for moving and stabilizing the drilling robot inside the borehole; a drilling unit (125) for generating the borehole; an extrusion unit (225) for producing a pipe (280) within the borehole to support the borehole; a material feed unit (340) feeding extrusion material into the extrusion unit, characterized in that the extrusion unit comprises a melting unit for melting the extrusion material (fig. 3; paragraphs 0039-0043).
Regarding claim 26, the drilling robot (330) is purely electrically driven (paragraph 0039).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040244970 to Smith in view of US 20090178809 to Jeffryes et al.
Smith teaches the extrusion material from claim 1 above, but it is not specifically taught what the material is.
Jeffryes teaches an extrusion material for a similar purpose to that of Smith, wherein it is further taught that the material is a thermoplastic (paragraph 0035 and 0041; claim 50). 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 the thermoplastic as taught by Jeffryes as the extrusion material of Smith. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because thermoplastic was a well-known material for being heated to form a permanent liner in a borehole, as taught by Jeffryes.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040244970 to Smith in view of US 3935910 to Gaudy et al.
Smith teaches the drilling robot with an extrusion unit from claim 1 above. However, it is not explicitly taught the extrusion unit has a cooling unit.
Gaudy teaches an extrusion unit 15 similar to that of Smith, wherein it is further taught that a cooling unit 21 is in the extrusion unit (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 49-52). 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 the cooling unit as taught by Gaudy in the extrusion unit of Smith. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a cooling unit was a well-known means for keeping this type of material cool until it is ready to be heated, as taught by Gaudy.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040244970 to Smith in view of US 20090178809 to Jeffryes et al, and further in view of US 20190125029 to Edwards.
Smith teaches the melting unit from claim 1 above, but it is not specifically taught what temperatures the unit achieves.
As seen in the rejection of claim 3 above, the combination of Smith and Jeffryes shows that the material can be a thermoplastic. Thus, for the same rationale applied to claim 3, the material of Smith is the thermoplastic of Jeffryes.
Edwards also teaches a thermoplastic that can be heated, just like the thermoplastic of Smith/Jeffryes. It is further taught that the thermoplastic needs to be heated to a temperature of up to 190 degrees C in order to melt (paragraph 0050). Since the thermoplastic of Smith/Jeffryes needs to be melted, 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 the melting temperatures as taught by Edwards in the melting unit of Smith. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because these types of melting temperatures were well-known in the art for melting a thermoplastic, as taught by Edwards.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040244970 to Smith in view of US 12098635 to Batarseh.
Smith teaches the drilling robot from claim 1 above, wherein it is further taught that there is an unlabeled melting channel that branches out from the melting unit (see at least the horizontal dashed lines in fig. 3). However, it is not explicitly taught how many channels there are.
Batarseh teaches a melting unit 204 similar to that of Smith, wherein it is further taught that there are at least four conveying channels 310 branching out from the unit (figs. 2-3; col. 6, lines 38-58). 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 the conveying channels as taught by Batarseh in the melting unit of Smith. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because these types of conveying channels were a well-known means for effectively conveying the material into the wellbore that will turn into the casing, as taught by Batarseh.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040244970 to Smith.
Smith teaches the drilling robot from claim 1 above, wherein it is further taught that a water-based flushing system (drilling fluid) is pumped through the robot to the drilling unit (paragraph 0041). However, it is not specifically taught that the flushing is for flushing cuttings to the surface through a channel.
The prior art of figure 1 in Smith teaches a drilling system wherein drilling fluid is used to flush drill cuttings to the surface through a channel 135 (paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Smith before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drilling robot taught by figure 3 of Smith to include the ability to flush cuttings to the surface through the channel of figure 1, in order to obtain the predictable result of removing the cuttings from the wellbore, which is extremely well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15-17, 19-21, and 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 18, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20090236146 broadly teaches pipe made by a combination of heating and extrusion (fig. 6; paragraphs 0022-0032). US 6565285 teaches a pipe length (1) comprising a hardening synthetic mass is manufactured at the same time as it is introduced into the ground channel (2) by the prepared synthetic mass being formed continuously inside the ground channel (2) as a run of piping (3) and left to harden (figs. 1-3).
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
Prosecution Insights