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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2; claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the first section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmichael (US 5358418) in view of Macrae et al. (US 20130014934).
CLAIM 1: Carmichael discloses a method for performing a wet connection in a downhole environment. The method comprises: placing a second half (male assembly 12) of an arrangement in the downhole environment (see col. 7, lines 49-63); lowering a first half (female assembly 14) of the arrangement in the downhole environment (see col. 7, lines 49-63); aligning at least one pin (40) of at least one of the first half of the arrangement and the second half of the arrangement with an alignment connection; inserting the at least one pin into the alignment connection (sleeve), wherein during the inserting pins from the second half of the arrangement are inserted into the first half of the arrangement and wherein an inner sleeve pin of the first half of the arrangement accepts the pins (see Fig. 1). Activating a control unit such that electrical energy is transferred between the first half of the arrangement and the second half of the arrangement (via electrical connection).
Carmichael fails to disclose activating a motor such that locking dogs connect the first half of the arrangement and the second half of the arrangement, wherein locking dog ends interface with a movable sleeve.
Macrae discloses a downhole logging tool.
Macrae discloses activating dogs (308) with a motor (306) and when the dogs are used to secure a downhole tool by interacting with a movable sleeve (500).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Carmichael to use motorized dogs to secure the tool with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known method of secure a downhole tool used in a similar environment.
CLAIMS 2 and 3: The alignment connection is located in the first half of the arrangement and the at least one pin is located in the second half of the arrangement (see Carmichael, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 4: The electrical energy travels from an up-hole environment to the downhole environment (the energy travels both way in the connection).
CLAIM 5: The electrical energy travels from the downhole environment to the up-hole environment (the energy travels both way in the connection).
CLAIM 6: Carmichael-Macrae fails to disclose the electrical energy is supplied by at least one battery located in a wellbore.
Examiner takes official notice that batteries are well known in the art as electrical supplies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carmichael to use a well known battery as the energy source with a reasonable expectation of success as a combination of known elements in which the battery would serve the well known function of providing energy in a remote location.
CLAIM 7: The movable sleeve is located in the first section of the arrangement (the sleeve would be in the female section).
CLAIM 8: Carmichael-Macrae fails to disclose the locking dogs are operated by the through a connected screw rod.
Examiner takes official notice that screw rods are well known in the art as a means of force transferring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activating means of Macrae to use the well known screw rod with a reasonable expectation of success as a well known means of transferring force from the motor to the dogs to activate them.
CLAIM 9: Macrae discloses sending a signal from the downhole environment to the up-hole environment that a successful connection has been established (“command signals”).
CLAIM 10: Carmichael-Macrae fails to disclose wherein the activating of the control unit is only performed after the signal has been received.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method the combination to only activate the control unit after receiving the signal as a rearrangement of the steps of the method as waiting for the signal before activating the electrical charge to make sure that the power is only sent to the desired locations.
CLAIM 11: Carmichael discloses a method for performing a wet connection in a downhole environment. The method comprises: placing a second half (male assembly 12) of an arrangement in the downhole environment (see col. 7, lines 49-63); lowering a first half (female assembly 14) of the arrangement in the downhole environment (see col. 7, lines 49-63); aligning at least one pin (40) of at least one of the first half of the arrangement and the second half of the arrangement with an alignment connection; inserting the at least one pin into the alignment connection (sleeve), wherein during the inserting pins from the second half of the arrangement are inserted into the first half of the arrangement and wherein an inner sleeve pin of the first half of the arrangement accepts the pins (see Fig. 1). Activating a control unit such that electrical energy is transferred between the first half of the arrangement and the second half of the arrangement (via electrical connection).
Carmichael fails to disclose activating a motor such that locking dogs connect the first half of the arrangement and the second half of the arrangement, wherein locking dog ends interface with a movable sleeve; sending a signal from the downhole environment to the up-hole environment htat a successful connection has been established.
Macrae discloses a downhole logging tool.
Macrae discloses activating dogs (308) with a motor (306) and when the dogs are used to secure a downhole tool by interacting with a movable sleeve (500). A signal from the downhole environment to the up-hole environment that a successful connection has been established (“command signals”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Carmichael to use motorized dogs to secure the tool with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known method of secure a downhole tool used in a similar environment.
CLAIM 12: The extending of the locking dogs places at least one tang of the locking dogs into a recess (see Macrae Figs 4A).
CLAIM 13: See claim 6 above.
CLAIMS 14 and 15: See claim 7 above.
CLAIM 16: See claim 8 above.
CLAIMS 17-21: These structures are inherent to the above structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses known connection systems to supply downhole electrical power to downhole systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights