Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
In regards to claim 1, the applicant argues That the communications port 18 and the communication probe 20 taught by Lasater et al. (US-7,336,199) are not separate housings [see applicant’s arguments pg. 10 L. 10-18].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Lasater explicitly teaches that communications port 20 and prove 20 are detachably connected by pin and box ends [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 18 and 20, col. 5 L. 37-44 and L. 52-58, col. 6 L. 18-23]. This teaching means that the communication probe and the communication ports are two separate and distinct housings. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Also, the applicant argues that the Bridges et al. (US-10,619,455) reference used to reject claim 9 does not teach the claimed radial gap [see applicant’s arguments last two lines of pg. 12, pg. 13 L. 1-3].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. It appears that the applicant is reading each prior art individually and not as a combination as required in 103 rejection. The Lasater reference clearly teaches that housings are connected via pin and box ends, and that the connectors between the housings are wet connectors [see Lasater col. 6 L27-30 and L. 36-38, col. 11 L. 28-35]. This teaching means that there is fluid running between the housings and between the antennas. Also, Bridges teaches that when fluid is running between the two inductive antennas, the housings of the antennas can be sealed to protect the antennas, and a radial gap can exists between the housings [see Bridges fig. 2 elements 114 and 124 (antennas), 116 and 126 (sealed housings), fig. 3 element d (radial gap), col. 5 L. 7-24, col. 6 L. 17-23]. Therefore, when Bridges teachings are applied in the Lasater system, the antennas housings of the antennas will be sealed and there will be a radial gap between the housings and between the antennas. For the reasons provided above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Oath or Declaration
An inventor’s path or declaration has not been filed. An inventor's oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 executed by or with respect to each inventor must be submitted no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid in response to a notice requiring such fee. See 37 CFR 1.53(f).
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) 1-5, 8-13, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasater et al. (US-7,336,199) in view of Bridges et al. (US-10,619,455).
In regards to claim 1, Lasater teaches an inductive communication link for use in a bottom hole assembly [fig. 2, col. 2 L. 39-44, col. 3L. 41-46]. Lasater further teaches that the inductive communication link comprises an outer antenna assembly including an outer antenna housing [fig. 2 element 18 (outer antenna housing) and 32 (outer antenna), col. 5 L. 18-21]. Also, Lasater teaches that the outer antenna assembly is coupled to a first downhole tool [fig. 2 element 16, col. 4 L. 4-10, col. 5 L. 21-23]. Furthermore, Lasater teaches that the outer antenna housing includes an open axial end [fig. 2 element 18, col. 5 L. 52-55]. Lasater further teaches that the communication link comprises an inner antenna assembly including an inner antenna housing separate and distinct from the outer antenna housing, the inner antenna having a pin end [fig. 2 element 20 (inner antenna housing) and 34 (inner antenna), col. 5 L. 23-26 and L. 52-55]. Also, Lasater teaches that the inner antenna assembly coupled to a rotary steerable tool (second downhole tool) [fig. 2 element 24, col. 3 L. 43-45, col. 6 L. 51-56]. Furthermore, Lasater teaches that the open axial end of the outer antenna housing is configured to receive the pin end of the inner antenna housing such that the inner antenna are part of the inducive communication link between the first downhole tool and the second downhole tool [fig. 2 elements 18 and 20, col. 5 L. 52-55, col. 6 L. 42-48].
Lasater teaches that the outer antenna housing comprises a space for the outer antenna and includes an open axial end [fig. 2 elements 32 and 18]. Also, Lasater teaches that the inner antenna housing is separate and distinct from the outer antenna housing, comprises a space for the inner antenna and has a pin end [fig. 2 elements 20 and 34]. Furthermore, Lasater teaches that the spaces provided for the antennas and the antennas are exposed to fluid [col. 6 L. 36-38]. However, Lasater does not teach that the spaces provided by the housings for the antennas are sealed and that the antenna assemblies are separated by a radial gap.
On the other hand, Bridges teaches that a downhole inductive communication assembly comprising an inner antenna housing and an outer antenna housing that are exposed to fluid can comprise an outer antenna housing that defines an interior sealed space within the outer antenna housing with the outer antenna, in its entirety disposed within the interior sealed spaced of the outer antenna housing in order to isolate the outer antenna from external pressure an fluid [fig. 2 elements 112 and 116 (sealed outer antenna housing), 114 (outer antenna) and 124 (inner antenna), col. 5 L. 7-30 and L. 47-53, col. 11 L. 5-12]. Also, Bridges teaches that the communication assembly can comprise an inner antenna housing that defines an interior sealed space within the inner antenna housing with the inner antenna, in its entirety, disposed within the interior sealed space of the inner antenna housing in order to isolate the inner antenna from external pressure and fluid [fig. 2 elements 122 and 126 (sealed inner antenna housing), 124 (inner antenna), col. 5 L. 7-30 and L. 47-53, col. 11 L. 5-12]. Furthermore, Bridges teaches that the sealed housings where the antennas are located can be spaced from each other by a radial gap [fig. 3 element d, col. 5 L. 30-35, col. 6 L. 17-23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bridges’ teachings of sealing the spaces provided by the housings for the antennas and providing a radial gap between the housings in the communication link taught by Lasater because the sealed spaces will permit to protect the antennas from the downhole environment [see Bridges col. 5 L. 25-27] and the gap will permit the separation of the housings without exposing any electrical wiring [see Bridges col. 5 L. 30-35].
The combination of Lasater and Bridges teaches that inner antenna housing has a pin end that defines an space in which the inner antenna is located [see Lasater fig. elements 20 and 34]. Also, the combination teaches that the space in which the inner antenna is located can be sealed [see Bridges fig. 2 elements 122 and 126 (sealed inner antenna housing), 124 (inner antenna), col. 5 L. 7-30 and L. 47-53, col. 11 L. 5-12]. These teachings means that when Bridges teaches are applied in Lasater communication link, the inner antenna housing has a pin end that defines an interior sealed space within the antenna housing with the inner antenna, in its entirety, disposed within the interior sealed space of the pin end of the inner antenna housing.
Also, the combination teaches that the outer antenna housing includes an open axial end having a space for the outer antenna and the inner antenna housing comprises a pin end that is received by the open axial end and having a space for the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 18, 20, 32 and 34]. The combination also teaches that a radial gap can exist between the housings without disturbing communications [see Bridges fig. 3 element d, col. 5 L. 30-35, col. 6 L. 17-23]. These teachings means when Bridges teaches are applied in the communication link taught by Lasater, the pin end of the inner antenna assembly and the inner antenna are spaced from the outer antenna assembly and the outer antenna by a radial gap.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that axial length of the outer antenna is larger than the axial length of the inner antenna in order to permit communication without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 32 and 34, col. 5 L. 37-44]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the axial length of the outer antenna is at least two times an axial length of the inner antenna. However, it is clear from the combination’s teachings that making the axial length of the outer antenna to be larger will permit the system to have reliable communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the axial length of the antennas to be the claimed lengths because it will permit the antennas to communicate with each other without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the inner antenna is proximate to an axial end of the pin end [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 20 and 34].
Also, the combination teaches that the axial length of the pin end is larger than the axial length of the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 20 and 34]. The combination does not teach that the axial length of the pin end is at least two times an axial length of the inner antenna. However, it is clear from the combination’s teachings that the axial length of the pin end is larger than the axial length of the inner antenna to permit communications without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 20 and 34, col. 5 L. 37-44]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the axial lengths of the pin end and the inner antenna to be the claimed lengths because it will permit the antennas to communicate with each other without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that axial length of the outer antenna is larger than the axial length of the inner antenna in order to permit communication without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 32 and 34, col. 5 L. 37-44]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the axial length of the outer antenna is 25mm greater than an axial length of the inner antenna. However, it is clear from the combination’s teachings that making the axial length of the outer antenna to be larger will permit the system to have reliable communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the axial length of the antennas to be the claimed lengths because it will permit the antennas to communicate with each other without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the inner antenna is proximate to an axial end of the pin end [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 20 and 34].
Also, the combination teaches that the axial length of the pin end is larger than the axial length of the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 20 and 34]. The combination does not teach that the axial length of the pin end is 25mm greater than an axial length of the inner antenna. However, it is clear from the combination’s teachings that the axial length of the pin end is larger than the axial length of the inner antenna to permit communications without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna [see Lasater fig. 2 elements 20 and 34, col. 5 L. 37-44]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the axial lengths of the pin end and the inner antenna to be the claimed lengths because it will permit the antennas to communicate with each other without requiring a precision match up of the location of the outer antenna with respect to the inner antenna.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the inner antenna assembly further includes integrated control electronics sealed in the inner antenna housing [see Lasater fig. 8 element 136, col. 10 L. 52-58].
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the radial gap is between an outer diameter of the pin end and an inner diameter of the outer antenna housing and is in fluid communication with drilling fluid [see Lasater fig. 2, col. 6 L. 36-38, see Bridges fig. 3 element d, col. 5 L. L. 18-24 and 30-35, col. 6 L. 17-23].
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the system can be used with other tools [see Lasater col. 6 L. 18-23]. However, the combination does not teach that the outer antenna assembly is disposed to rotate with respect to the inner antenna assembly.
On the other hand, Lasater teaches the concept that an inductive conductive link can be created between a rotating outer antenna and an inner antenna that does not rotate [see Lasater fig. 2 element 12, 28 and 30, col. 4 L. 36-37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lasater’s teachings making the outer antenna to rotate in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to be used in systems where the first downhole tool rotates while the second downhole tool is static.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed inductive communication link. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the communication link can be used in a method for transmitting information from a surface location to a rotary steerable tool in a drill string [see Lasater col. 6 L. 51-56]. Also, the combination teaches that the method comprises transmitting the information from the surface location to a measurement while drilling tool in the drill string using an electromagnetic telemetry link [see Lasater col. 1 L. 35-41, col. 4 L. 4-12, col. 6 L. 51-54, col. 10 L. 21-26]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the method comprises transmitting the information from the measurement while drilling tool to the rotary steerable tool via the inductive communication link [see Lasater col. 6 L. 42-48 and L. 51-56].
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the method comprises transmitting data from the rotary steerable tool to the measurement while drilling tool via the inductive communication link and transmitting the data from the measurement while drilling tool to the surface using the electromagnetic telemetry link [see Lasater col. 1 L. 35-41, col. 6 L. 60-63, col. 7 L. 22-28, col. 10 L. 21-26].
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as shown in the rejection of claims 2 and 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the inductive communication link is configured to transmit the information [see Lasater col. 6 L. 51-63]. It is inherent that the information is communicated using a frequency. The combination does not explicitly teach that the frequency is in a range from about 500 Hz to about 20 kHz. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would know that the communication frequency must be selected based on the environment where the system will function. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have selected the claimed frequency range because it will permit the system to reliably communicate the information.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as shown in the rejections of claims 1, 4 and 11 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claims 3 and 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as shown in the rejections of claim 9 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasater et al. (US-7,336,199) in view of Bridges et al. (US-10,619,455) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Fernandez et al. (US-11,949,156).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the outer antenna includes a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in an outer bobbin.
On the other hand, Fernandez teaches that an inductive antenna can comprise a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in a bobbin [fig. 1 element 3 and 2 (bobbin) and 8 (winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove), col. 5 L. 30-35 and L. 65-67, col. 6 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Fernandez’s teachings of an inductive antenna comprising a winding and bobbin in the outer antenna taught by the combination because it will permit the system to communicate reliably via induction.
The combination of Lasater, Bridges and Fernandez teaches that the outer antenna is located in a wall of the outer antenna housing [see Lasater fig. 2 element 32]. This teaching means that the outer antenna housing comprises a groove where the outer antenna is deployed. Also, the combination teaches that the outer antenna comprising the bobbing is sealed by the housing [see Bridges col. 5 L. 18-24, see Fernandez col. 4 L. 11-12]. These teachings mean that the outer bobbin is deployed and sealed in a corresponding bobbin groove in the outer antenna housing.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that e inner antenna includes a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in an inner bobbin.
On the other hand, Fernandez teaches that an inductive antenna can comprise a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in a bobbin [fig. 1 element 3 and 2 (bobbin) and 8 (winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove), col. 5 L. 30-35 and L. 65-67, col. 6 L. 1-5]. Also, Fernandez teaches that the antenna assembly includes a magnetic core deployed in a bore in the inner bobbin internal to the antenna winding [fig. 1 element 5, col. 4 L. 10-11, col. 5 L. 35-36 and L. 65-67, col. 6 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Fernandez’s teachings of an inductive antenna comprising a winding, a bobbin and a magnetic core in the inner antenna taught by the combination because it will permit the system to communicate reliably via induction.
The combination of Lasater, Nguyen and Fernandez teaches that the inner antenna is located in a wall of the pin end [see Lasater fig. 2 element 34]. This teaching means that the pin end comprises a bore where the inner antenna is deployed. Also, the combination teaches that the inner antenna comprising the bobbing is sealed by the housing [see Bridges col. 5 L. 18-24, see Fernandez col. 4 L. 11-12]. These teachings mean that the inner bobbin is deployed and sealed in a bore in the pin end.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Lasater and Bridges, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the radial gap is between an outer diameter of the pin end and an inner diameter of the outer antenna housing and is in fluid communication with drilling fluid [see Lasater fig. 2, col. 6 L. 36-38, see Bridges fig. 3 element d, col. 5 L. L. 18-24 and 30-35, col. 6 L. 17-23].
The combination does not teach that the outer antenna includes a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in an outer bobbin and that the inner antenna includes a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in an inner bobbin.
On the other hand, Fernandez teaches that an inductive antenna can comprise a winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove in a bobbin [fig. 1 element 3 and 2 (bobbin) and 8 (winding that is wound about a reduced outer diameter groove), col. 5 L. 30-35 and L. 65-67, col. 6 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Fernandez’s teachings of an inductive antenna comprising a winding and bobbin in the outer antenna and inner antenna taught by the combination because it will permit the system to communicate reliably via induction.
The combination of Lasater, Bridges and Fernandez teaches that the outer antenna is located in a wall of the outer antenna housing [see Lasater fig. 2 element 32]. This teaching means that the outer antenna housing comprises a groove where the outer antenna is deployed. Also, the combination teaches that the outer antenna comprising the bobbing is sealed by the housing [see Bridges col. 5 L. 18-24, see Fernandez col. 4 L. 11-12]. These teachings mean that the outer bobbin is deployed and sealed in a corresponding bobbin groove in the outer antenna housing.
The combination of Lasater, Bridges and Fernandez teaches that the inner antenna is located in a wall of the pin end [see Lasater fig. 2 element 34]. This teaching means that the pin end comprises a bore where the inner antenna is deployed. Also, the combination teaches that the inner antenna comprising the bobbing is sealed by the housing [see Bridges col. 5 L. 18-24, see Fernandez col. 4 L. 11-12]. These teachings mean that the inner bobbin is deployed and sealed in a bore in the pin end.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Lasater, Bridges and Fernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Lasater, Bridges and Fernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights