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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson, Jr. et al. (US 5188174, hereafter Anderson).
With regards to claim 15, Anderson discloses a method for driving an armored cable (tubing 20 broadly meets the limitation of an armored cable) in a downhole application, the method comprising the steps of: loading the armored cable into an injector head (10); adjusting injector head compression pressure for a first and second set of chain-driven grippers to hold and move the armored cable without slippage; driving the armored cable to move from a reel to a wellhead or the wellhead to the reel by moving the first and second set of chain-driven grippers (100); wherein there is no damage (the injection apparatus is inherently designed to not damage the tubing as it moves into the wellbore) to an outer surface of the armored cable or an electrical core of the armored cable (col. 4:44-48, col. 10:35- col. 12:2 and figures 1-11).
With regards to claim 16, Anderson discloses the injector head compression pressure is adjusted to be in a range of a minimum required to hold the armored cable without slippage when held by the first and second set of chain-driven grippers and no more than 100 psi over the minimum (col. 11:57- col. 12:2, it applies the minimum required to avoid slippage).
With regards to claim 17, Anderson discloses the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers are configured to hold and compress the armored cable without slippage at a load of 0 lbs to 35,000 lbs (col. 12:3-12; 10,000-40,000 lbs is disclosed).
With regards to claim 19, Anderson discloses each of the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers have a concave inner contact profile (132) configured to match an outer diameter profile of the armored cable (col. 6:37-50); the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers comprise a trough that is adjacent to first and second surrounding walls; the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers are configured to compress at least a section of the armored cable and to cover at least 330 degrees of an outer diameter of the section of the armored cable (this is inferred from Fig. 3 and col. 6:43-49).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson.
With regards to claim 18, Anderson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to explicitly disclose the armored cable is driven to well depths of 10,000 feet or more. It is taken as Official Notice that well depths vary region to region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the well depth of 10,000 feet or more with the system of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to allow for tool usage in deeper wells.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Pinkston et al. (US 2016/0047210, hereafter Pinkston).
With regards to claim 1, Anderson discloses a set of grippers (100) for an armored cable (tubing 20 is broadly read as an armored cable) comprising: a first gripper and second gripper (100), each having a concave inner contact profile (132) configured to match an outer diameter profile of the armored cable; the first gripper and second gripper comprise a trough (132) that is adjacent to first and second surrounding walls (130); the first and second gripper are configured to compress a section of the armored cable and to cover at least 330 degrees of an outer diameter of the section of the armored cable (this is inferred from Fig. 3 and col. 6:43-49). Anderson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it doesn’t explicitly disclose that the armored cable includes multiple armor strands. Pinkston discloses a coiled tubing that is composed of multiple armored strands (Fig. 2, 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the armored strands disclosed in Pinkston with the tubing and gripper taught in Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to allow energy and communication to lowered downhole tools.
With regards to claim 2, Anderson discloses the first and second grippers each have a smooth and approximately semi-circular inner contact profile (Fig. 9, 11).
With regards to claim 3, Anderson discloses the first and second grippers are made of cast carbon steel, cast steel, or cast or forged iron or steel (col. 6:49-50).
With regards to claim 4, Anderson discloses the armored cable has an outer diameter of 1 to 3 inches (col. 6:4-7) and the first and second grippers are configured to match the outer diameter profile of the armored cable when it is under a load of 0 lbs to 35,000 lbs (col. 12:3-12).
With regards to claim 5, Anderson discloses the grippers are configured to compress the armored cable without slippage at a load of 0 lbs to 20,000 lbs without damaging the multiple armor strands and/or any part of an internal electrical core of the armored cable (col. 11:64- col. 12:12).
With regards to claim 6, Anderson discloses the first and second grippers are configured to have a gap at a terminal end of the first and second surrounding walls of the first and second grippers that is no more than 0.15 inches when compressing the armored cable (col. 11:64- col. 12:12; Fig. 3, it is inferred that the gap between the gripping members is less than 0.15” based on the total radius of the “cable” being 2 1/2”).
With regards to claim 7, Anderson discloses the first and second grippers (100) comprise fitments for attachment to a chain-driven drive (50, 52).
With regards to claim 8, Anderson discloses a system for holding or moving an armored cable (tubing 20 is broadly read as an armored cable) in a downhole application, the system comprising: an injector head with a first set of chain-driven grippers (50, 100) and an opposing second set of chain-driven grippers (52, 100); the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers compressing the armored cable, wherein each of the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers have a concave inner contact profile (132) configured to match an outer diameter profile of the armored cable (col. 6:37-50); the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers comprise a trough (132) that is adjacent to first and second surrounding walls (130); the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers are configured to compress at least a section of the armored cable and to cover at least 330 degrees of an outer diameter of the section of the armored cable (this is inferred from Fig. 3 and col. 6:43-49). Anderson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it doesn’t explicitly disclose that the armored cable includes multiple armor strands. Pinkston discloses a coiled tubing that is composed of multiple armored strands (Fig. 2, 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the armored strands disclosed in Pinkston with the tubing and gripper taught in Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to allow energy and communication to lowered downhole tools.
With regards to claim 9, modified Anderson discloses the armored cable comprises multiple armor strands (Pinkston Fig. 2, element 37) and the first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers (100) when opposed and compressing the armored cable are configured to have a gap at a terminal end of the first and second surrounding walls of no more than a smallest outer diameter of a strand of the multiple armor strands (using the radius of the cables of Fig. 2 of Pinkston and comparing with Fig. 3 of Anderson, this appears to be true).
With regards to claim 10, modified Anderson discloses the armored cable comprises double layered, helically wound, metal armor strands (Pinkston, Fig. 2, 43a-43d) and an inner core including multiple electrical conductor wires (Pinkston, Fig. 2, 37) with insulation and a shielding layer (Pinkston, Fig. 2, 39).
With regards to claim 11, Anderson discloses first set of chain-driven grippers and second set of chain-driven grippers are configured to compress the armored cable without slippage at a load of 0 lbs to 15,000 lbs without damaging the multiple armor strands and/or any part of an internal electrical core of the armored cable (col. 11:64- col. 12:12).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Pinkston as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Avakov et al. (US 5799731, hereafter Avakov).
With regards to claim 12, modified Anderson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to explicitly disclose a cable guide coupled to the injector head, wherein the cable guide comprises guide rollers that have a continuous concave surface that is a same size or slightly larger size than an outer diameter of the armored cable and are configured to guide the armored cable from vertical alignment at the injector head towards a more horizontal alignment in a direction toward a reel. Avakov discloses a cable guide (26) coupled to an injector head (22), wherein the cable guide comprises guide rollers (36, 30) that have a continuous concave surface (40, 42) that is a same size or slightly larger size than an outer diameter of the tubing (16) and are configured to guide the tubing (16) from vertical alignment at the injector head towards a more horizontal alignment in a direction toward a reel (18) (col. 3:56- col. 4:12; Fig. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the guide of Avakov with the apparatus taught in modified Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to ease the transition between the reel and the injector, as is common in coiled tubing operations.
With regards to claim 13, Avakov discloses the guide rollers comprises first and second guide rollers; and the first guide rollers (30) run along a length of the cable guide on a bottom of the tubing or at a vertical entry to the injector head, and the second guide rollers (36) run along a the vertical entry to the injector head at a far side of the reel; and the second guide rollers are on at least a vertical portion of the cable guide and are opposite the first guide rollers (Fig. 2, 3).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Pinkston as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mangum et al. (US 2017/0241222, hereafter Mangum).
With regards to claim 14 and 20, modified Anderson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to explicitly disclose a cable clamp comprising a clamp frame joining and compressing an opposing pair of grippers that have a concave inner contact profile that is configured to match the outer diameter profile of the armored cable; wherein the cable clamp is positioned below the injector head and the opposing pair of grippers compresses the armored cable. Mangum discloses (para 22; Fig. 1, 2) a cable clamp (60) positioned below an injector head (32) is capable of holding the entire weight of a pumping system (22) and an electrical cable (30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cable clamp disclosed in Mangum with the system taught in modified Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done so that downhole weight can be assumed by something other then the injector during periods of non-movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited all show similar features to those of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P STEPHENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/DANIEL P STEPHENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights