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 .
US 8322461 B2
US 9388635 B2 – brake 122, 226- press transducer
US 20020088648 A1
US 20010022241 A1
US 6059050 A
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 4-7 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 4 and 6 recite “the hydraulic circuit” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected
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.
(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) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 5485889 A to Gray
Regarding claim 1: Gray discloses 1. An orienting tool configured for use in a coiled tubing 100 bottom hole assembly (Figure 2), the orienting tool comprising:
a first collar 42 configured to rotate with respect to a second collar 41;
a hydraulic pump 47 deployed in the first collar, a drive shaft 50 of the hydraulic pump rotationally coupled to the second collar(Figure 3), the hydraulic pump configured to provide pressurized hydraulic fluid to a metering valve 55 in the first collar; and
the metering valve configured to restrict flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid and thereby resist rotation of the drive shaft and the second collar relative to the first collar via back pressure to the hydraulic pump. (Col 6, line 50- Col 7, line 40)
Regarding claim 2: Gray discloses 2. The orienting tool of claim 1, wherein the drive shaft is configured to be driven by reactive torque in the second collar from a drill bit engaging a subterranean formation during a coiled tubing drilling operation. (Abstract, Col 7, lines 5- Col 7, line 40)
Regarding claim 3: Gray discloses 3. The orienting tool of claim 1, wherein the drive shaft is rotationally coupled with the second collar via a gearbox that provides a stepped down rotary torque to the drive shaft. (Figure 3, the ring gear and gear on the shaft is interpreted as meeting the limitation “gearbox”)
Regarding claim 11: Gray discloses
11. A method for coiled tubing drilling comprising:
deploying a coiled tubing 100 bottom hole assembly in a wellbore(Figure 2), the bottom hole assembly including an orienting tool (Figure 3) comprising a first collar 42 configured to rotate with respect to a second collar 41, a hydraulic pump 47 deployed in the first collar, a drive shaft 50 of the hydraulic pump rotationally coupled to the second collar (Figure 3), the hydraulic pump configured to provide pressurized hydraulic fluid to a metering valve 55 in the first collar, and the metering valve configured to restrict flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid and thereby resist rotation of the drive shaft and the second collar relative to the first collar via back pressure to the hydraulic pump (Col 6, line 50- Col 7, line 40) ; and
using the coiled tubing bottom hole assembly to drill the wellbore (Abstract, Claim 13), the drive shaft driven by reactive torque in the second collar from the drilling to actuate the hydraulic pump such that the second collar rotates with respect to the first collar. (Col 6, line 50- Col 7, line 40)
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied above in view of US 20120145462 A1 to Leising.
Regarding claim 4: Gray discloses the claimed invention except 4. The orienting tool of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic circuit comprises a first pressure sensor deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump.
Leising teaches a pressure sensor 70 at the output of a downhole pump 62 [0028].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Gray and add a first pressure sensor deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump, in view of Leising, “to monitor the pump output and pressure buildup during operation”[0028].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray and Leising as applied to claim 4 above , further in view of US 20130046417 A1 to Schroter.
Regarding claim 6: Gray discloses the claimed invention except 6. The orienting tool of claim 4, wherein the hydraulic circuit comprises a second pressure sensor deployed downstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an input pressure to the hydraulic pump.
Schroter teaches a similar system with a pressure sensor 22 downstream of a metering valve 134.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Gray to a second pressure sensor deployed downstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an input pressure to the hydraulic pump, in view of Schroter, so as monitor the pressure after the valve to aid in the control of the rotation between the two collars.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied above in view of US 20130046417 A1 to Schroter.
Regarding claim 9: Gray discloses the claimed invention except 9. The orienting tool of claim 1, further comprising a brake configured to prevent rotation of the second collar with respect to the first collar.
Schroter teaches a similar system with a brake 122 between two collars (22 and 28, [0083])
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Grey and add a brake configured to prevent rotation of the second collar with respect to the first collar, in view of Schroter, “in order to impede or prevent relative rotation between the lower assembly (28) and the upper assembly (22)” [0082]
Regarding claim 10: Gray discloses the claimed invention except 10. The orienting tool of claim 1, further comprising a pressure relief valve deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump.
Schroter teaches a similar system with a pressure relief valve 218 deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump.(Figure 6)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Grey to have a pressure relief valve deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump, in view of Schroter, so as to bypass the metering valve when the pressure in the line exceeds a threshold pressure [0086]
Regarding claim 15: Gray discloses the claimed invention except 15. The method of claim 11, wherein:
the orienting tool further comprises a brake configured to prevent rotation of the second collar with respect to the first collar, and
the method further comprises releasing the break prior to actuating the hydraulic pump.
Schroter teaches a similar system with a brake 122 between two collars (22 and 28, [0083]) where the break is operated by pressure originating from the pump(See figure 6, [00138))
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Grey and add a brake configured to prevent rotation of the second collar with respect to the first collar, and perform the step of releasing the break prior to actuating the hydraulic pump (The braking system of Schroter is released prior to the pump be actuated, since it is pressure controlled, via the pump)., in view of Schroter, “in order to impede or prevent relative rotation between the lower assembly (28) and the upper assembly (22)” [0082]
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied above in view of US 6059050 A to Gray’050.
Regarding claim 12: Gray discloses the claimed invention except 12. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
incrementally opening the metering valve to increase a rotation rate of the second collar with respect to the first collar while drilling; or
incrementally closing the metering valve to decrease a rotation rate of the second collar with respect to the first collar while drilling.
Gray’050 teaches a similar system with a metering valve 56 operated by a controller (Col 8, lines4-9) to keep the rotation at a required rate (Abstract, claim 1)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Gray and include a controllable metering valve and operating it via a controller to increase and decrease the rotational rate, in view of Gray’050, so as to maintain “flow of fluid at a required rate to maintain the relative rotation at a required rate.”(Claim 1)
Regarding claim 16: Gray discloses 16. An orienting tool configured for use in a coiled tubing 100 bottom hole assembly (Figure 2), the orienting tool comprising:
a first collar 42 configured to rotate with respect to a second collar 41;
a hydraulic pump 47 deployed in the first collar, a drive shaft 50 of the hydraulic pump rotationally coupled to the second collar(Figure 3), the hydraulic pump configured to provide pressurized hydraulic fluid to a metering valve 55 in the first collar; and
the metering valve configured to restrict flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid and thereby resist rotation of the drive shaft and the second collar relative to the first collar via back pressure to the hydraulic pump. (Col 6, line 50- Col 7, line 40)
However Gray fails to disclose an electronic controller configured to: incrementally open the metering valve to increase a rotation rate of the second collar with respect to the first collar; and incrementally close the metering valve to decrease a rotation rate of the second collar with respect to the first collar.
Gray’050 teaches a similar system with a metering valve 56 operated by an electronic controller (Col 8, lines4-9) to keep the rotation at a required rate (Abstract, claim 1)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Gray and include a controllable metering valve and operating it via an electronic controller to increase and decrease the rotational rate, in view of Gray’050, so as to maintain “flow of fluid at a required rate to maintain the relative rotation at a required rate.”(Claim 1)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Gray’050 as applied above in view of US 20130046417 A1 to Schroter
Regarding claim 20: Gray discloses 20. The orienting tool of claim 16, further comprising:
a gearbox coupled between the drive shaft and the second collar that provides a stepped down rotary torque to the drive shaft; (Figure 3, the ring gear and gear on the shaft is interpreted as meeting the limitation “gearbox”)
However fails to disclose:
a brake configured to prevent rotation of the second collar with respect to the first collar; and
a pressure relief valve deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump.
Schroter teaches a similar system with a brake 122 between two collars (22 and 28, [0083])
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Grey and add a brake configured to prevent rotation of the second collar with respect to the first collar, in view of Schroter, “in order to impede or prevent relative rotation between the lower assembly (28) and the upper assembly (22)” [0082]
Schroter teaches a similar system with a pressure relief valve 218 deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump.(Figure 6)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Grey to have a pressure relief valve deployed upstream of the metering valve in fluid communication with an output pressure of the hydraulic pump, in view of Schroter, so as to bypass the metering valve when the pressure in the line exceeds a threshold pressure [0086]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8,13-14 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5894896 A teaches an Orienting Tool For Coiled Tubing Drilling.
US 8322461 B2 teaches a hydraulic circuit for controlling a rotatable connection in a wellbore tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights