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 6, 7, 16, and 17 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.
Claims 6, 16 recite “the downhole longitudinal load line and the uphole longitudinal load line are a straight downhole longitudinal load line and a straight uphole longitudinal load line” that is unclear. Instant fig. 5A shows a curved downhole longitudinal load line.
Claims 7, 17 recite “the downhole longitudinal load line and the uphole longitudinal load line are a curved downhole longitudinal load line and a curved uphole longitudinal load line” that is unclear. Instant fig. 5A shows a straight uphole longitudinal load line.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charlton (6666267).
Charlton discloses a stabilizer and a well system, comprising:
Re claims 1, 11:
a wellbore 85 (i.e., fig. 7);
a downhole conveyance 75 located within the wellbore; and
a stabilizer 5/5d (i.e., fig. 7/9) coupled to the downhole conveyance, the stabilizer including:
a downhole component 10/10d coupled to the downhole conveyance in a wellbore; and
two or more helical wellbore stabilizing elements 35d (i.e., fig. 9) extending radially outward from the downhole component, the two or more helical wellbore stabilizing elements shaped such that an annular flow area between leading edges of adjacent helical wellbore stabilizing elements and between trailing edges of adjacent helical wellbore stabilizing elements is variable along at least a portion of a length (L) of the two or more helical wellbore stabilizing elements, and such that a downhole longitudinal load line having a width Wd (i.e., attached figure) greater than 1 mm is located at a downhole leading edge of one of the two or more helical wellbore stabilizers, and an uphole longitudinal load line having a width Wu (i.e., attached figure) greater than 1 mm is located at an uphole trailing edge of another of the two or more helical wellbore stabilizers.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 2, 12, the downhole component 10d is a downhole tubular.
Re claims 3, 13, the downhole longitudinal load line has a width Wd greater than 2 mm and the uphole longitudinal load line has a width Wu greater than 2 mm (i.e., fig. 9).
Re claims 4, 14, the downhole longitudinal load line has a width Wd greater than 5 mm and the uphole longitudinal load line has a width Wu greater than 5 mm (i.e., fig. 9).
Re claims 5, 15, the downhole longitudinal load line and the uphole longitudinal load line have different widths (i.e., fig. 9).
Re claims 6, 16 (as best understood, 112 issue), the downhole longitudinal load line and the uphole longitudinal load line are a straight downhole longitudinal load line and a straight uphole longitudinal load line (i.e., fig. 9).
Re claims 8, 18, the two or more helical wellbore stabilizing elements 35d are shaped such that an unobstructed axial flow path (i.e., fig. 9, no obstacles in the flow path) exists between the adjacent helical wellbore stabilizing elements along the length (L).
Re claims 9, 19, adjacent helical wellbore stabilizing elements 35d define a flow path centerline, and furthermore wherein the flow path centerline is non-linear (i.e., a modified z-shaped line, fig. 9)
Re claims 10, 20, the flow path centerline is a modified z-shape (i.e., fig. 9) or modified s-shape.
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) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton.
Re claims 7, 17 (as best understood, 112 issue), Charlton is silent on a curved downhole longitudinal load line and a curved uphole longitudinal load line. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the shape of a downhole longitudinal load line and an uphole longitudinal load line with a curved downhole longitudinal load line and a curved uphole longitudinal load line to enhance flow efficiency of the flow of fluids, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357F. 2d669, 149USPQ47 (CCPA 1966).
Note that applicant must elect claim 6, 16 or claims 7, 17 since they are directed to different Species:
Claims 6, 16 - a straight downhole longitudinal load line and a straight uphole longitudinal load line.
Claims 7, 17 - a curved downhole longitudinal load line and a curved uphole longitudinal load line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows the similar features to those of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676