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 § 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) 1-6, 8-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6189617 to Sorhus et al in view of US 20120085003 to Goodin.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 19, Sorhus teaches a downhole eductor system and associated method comprising: a pump 38 configured to pump fluid; a collection chamber assembly fluidically connected to the pump, the collection chamber assembly including an assembly casing 40; a collection chamber (above 66 in fig. 2) inside the assembly casing to collect debris transported by the fluid; and a lift tube 50 disposed inside and in a fixed position relative to the assembly casing, the lift tube configured to direct the debris into the collection chamber (figs. 1-3; col. 3, line 15 through col. 4, line 44).
However, it is not specifically taught that the lift tube is constructed with a polymer composite material.
Goodin teaches a tube 32 inside a casing 34, and is used to direct fluid/debris into a chamber 42 (fig. 2; paragraphs 0068-0087), very similar to that of Sorhus. It is further taught that the tube is constructed with a polymer material (paragraph 0075). 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 a polymer material as taught by Goodin as the material for the lift tube of Sorhus. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a polymer material was a well-known material for tubulars in the debris removing environment as taught by Goodin.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, wherein the lift tube includes a plurality of tubulars connected via one or more couplers 58 (figs. 2-3 and col. 3, lines 41-52 of Sorhus).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, further including one or more centralizers 52 configured to contact both the lift tube and the assembly casing tubular to hold the lift tube in the fixed position relative to the assembly casing (figs. 2-3 and col. 3, lines 41-52 of Sorhus).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, wherein there is an annular space 53 between the lift tube and the assembly casing (fig. 3 of Sorhus).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the lift tube does not include metal and does not include alloy (the composite resins, plastics, and/or polymers from paragraph 0075 of Goodin are not metals or alloys).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 20, wherein the lift tube includes a top tubular (where uppermost 52 is in fig. 2 of Sorhus), at least one middle tubular (between the number 54 and the other number 52 in fig. 2), a lower tubular (below the number 54 in fig. 2), and a plurality of centralizers 52 configured to hold the lift tube in an immobile position relative to the assembly casing.
Regarding claim 10, it is not specifically taught what material the centralizers of Sorhus are constructed of. However, the element 58 of Goodin is on an exterior surface of the tube 32, in the same manner as that of Sorhus. Element 58 and tube 32 are parts of the suction head 20, and paragraph 0075 of Goodin states that all parts of the suction head can be made of the polymer material. Thus, for the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, 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 a polymer material as taught by Goodin as the material for the centralizers of Sorhus.
Regarding claim 11, wherein a length of the lift tube may be changed by changing a number of the one or more middle tubulars (the tubes 50 of Sorhus can be set on top of one another in any number desired, equating to a certain length; col. 3, lines 41-52 of Sorhus).
Regarding claim 12, the lift tube terminates at the collection chamber (fig. 2 of Sorhus shows that the end of the lift tube is nearly adjacent to 66, which is the bottom of the chamber).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorhus et al in view of Goodin as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 5351752 to Wood et al.
Sorhus in view of Goodin teaches the lift tube of claims 1 and 13 that is made of a polymer material, but it is not explicitly taught that the lift tube includes reinforcement fibers of carbon, glass, aramid, metal, or thermoplastic.
Wood teaches tubes 34 for use in a downhole environment, similar to that of Sorhus in view of Goodin, wherein it is further taught that these tubes can include at least reinforcement fibers of carbon and/or glass (col. 5, lines 40-50). 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 reinforcement fibers of carbon and/or glass as taught by Wood in the lift tube of Sorhus/Goodin. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because reinforcement fibers of carbon and/or glass were a well-known means for strengthening and reducing the weight of tubulars in the downhole environment as taught by Wood.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorhus et al in view of Goodin as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20210010358 to Guidry et al.
Sorhus in view of Goodin teaches the lift tube of claims 1 and 13 that is made of a polymer material, but it is not explicitly taught what the polymer material includes.
Guidry teaches tubes 54 for moving fluid with particulate material therein, similar to that of Sorhus in view of Goodin, wherein it is further taught that these tubes can be made of polymer material that includes at least PEEK and PAEK (paragraph 0036). 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 a PEEK and/or PAEK material as taught by Guidry as the material for the lift tube of Sorhus/Goodin. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a PEEK and/or PAEK material was a well-known material for tubulars in the particulate laden fluid environment as taught by Guidry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10309209 teaches a lift tube 20 with centralizers 32 (fig. 3). US 2405324 teaches an eduction/lift tube 21 of particular interest (fig. 2).
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