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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/13/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 1-3 have been renumbered 2-4, respectively.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “such that a the monitored” should most likely be “such that [[a]] the monitored”. Appropriate correction is required.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet filed 11/13/2025 appears to reference the incorrect parent application number. The application number listed by the applicant, 18673673, is for “Multi-Function Conducting Elements For a Catheter”, and appears in no way related to the current invention. It appears that 18637673 is the correct application number. A corrected/updated ADS is required to correct this situation. See at least 37 CFR 1.76 (c) and MPEP 601.015(a)II.
Additionally, the Filing Receipt mailed on 12/4/2025 also has the apparently incorrect parent application number. Thus, a written request for a corrected Filing Receipt is required.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the force" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 also recites the limitation "a chain system injector drive system" in lines 4-5. This is unclear and indefinite since it appears that it is referring to two different systems as one system. It is unclear if perhaps there is a chain system and an injector drive system, or if it is meant to refer to only a chain system and the words “injector drive system” were erroneously placed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 6116345 to Fontana et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 6 (as best understood with respect to the 112 rejection above), Fontana discloses an injector chain control system and associated method for a coiled tubing unit comprised of: one or more sensors (see col. 4, lines 36-43; col. 12, line 61 through col. 13, line 8) to monitor the force on a coiled tubing injector drive system and transmit real time data (for example, in col. 13, line 55 through col. 14, line 2, it is stated that the processor continuously and automatically performs functions) to a processor 170 or 310; a chain system 200 to control injector drive system operating parameters wherein the amount of a hydraulic, an electric, or a pneumatic pressure allocated to the chain system is determined by calculations of the processor (see col. 9, lines 3-15; col. 11, line 47 through col. 12, line 25); wherein the chain system is configured to employ operating limits based on the force sensed on the coiled tubing injector drive system by the one or more sensors (see figs. 1-3 and 8; col. 14, line 22 through col. 15, line 27; col. 17, line 60 through col. 18, line 67).
Regarding renumbered claim 2, the injector chain control system of claim 1, wherein a pressure change on the chain system is triggered based on the force sensed on the coiled tubing injector drive system by the one or more sensors (in col. 15, lines 3-8, it is stated that additional pressure is exerted based on forces sensed by the sensors; see also col. 14, lines 34-37).
Regarding renumbered claim 3, the injector chain control system of claim 1, wherein a tension pressure on the chain system is based on processor calculations employing the force sensed on the coiled tubing injector drive system by the one or more sensors (col. 4, lines 44-49 and col. 12, lines 21-23).
Regarding renumbered claim 4, the injector chain control system of claim 1, wherein data from the one or more sensors is provided to the processor in a form comprising hydraulic data, electric data, pneumatic data, or a combination thereof (col. 8, line 16-33; col. 9, lines 11-15; col. 17, line 60 through col. 18, line 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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