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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 7/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/9/26.
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) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 6230824 B1 to Peterman.
Regarding claim 13: Peterman discloses 13. (Original) A method, comprising:
extending a drill string 60 through a wellhead assembly 35 provided at a surface of a well and through the well (Figure 1), wherein an annular flow path 66 is formed between the drill string and the well, and wherein the wellhead assembly comprises:
a mechanical barrier (106-Figures 2a,b, 3A, col 8, line 59- Col 9, line 26 can considered mechanical barriers) positioned axially between a wellhead assembly opening (top, above 42) and a blowout preventer (BOP) stack 46; and
a mud return passage (see figure 16, 740,746,768,766,760) formed through the wellhead assembly and fluidly connecting the annular flow path to a mud return outlet;
directing mud into the drill string and returning the mud through the annular flow path (Col 31, lines 5-19);
activating the mechanical barrier (via 140) to constrict around the drill string and contain the mud returning from the well (Col 10, lines 1-45); and
directing the contained mud from the wellhead assembly to a main mud return line (Col 9, lines 48-67).
Regarding claim 16: Peterman discloses 16. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the wellhead assembly further comprises a tertiary wiper 234, figure 5 positioned axially between the mechanical barrier 106 and the wellhead assembly opening (above 42), the tertiary wiper comprising a hole extending centrally through an elastomeric body 258, and wherein the drill string extends through the hole.(232 is part of 230, and 42 which is position between 38 and the wellhead assembly opening )
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) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6230824 B1 to Peterman.
Regarding claim 14: Peterman discloses 14. (Original) The method of claim 13, further comprising drilling ahead using a drill bit 64 attached at an end of the drill string to drill a new part of the well (Figure 1), However fails to explicitly disclose wherein while drilling ahead the mechanical barrier is not activated.
Peterman also discloses a rotating control device 108 and states “The diverters 106 and 108 may be used alternately or together to sealingly engage a drill string and, thereby, isolate the fluid in the annulus of the riser 52 from the fluid in the well annulus 66. It should be clear that either the diverter 106 or 108 may be used alone as the separating medium between the fluid in the riser 52 and the fluid in the well annulus 66.”(Col. 9, lines 55-51)
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 Peterman and to allow the mechanical barrier 106 to be not activated when drilling ahead and instead use the rotating control device, in view of Peterman, so as to isolate the fluid in the riser while preventing wear on the non rotating seal 150 during the rotation of the drilling string during active drilling.
Regarding claim 15: Peterman discloses the claimed invention except 15. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the mechanical barrier is activated while the drill string is being run in hole (RIH).
Peterman also discloses a rotating control device 108 and states “The diverters 106 and 108 may be used alternately or together to sealingly engage a drill string and, thereby, isolate the fluid in the annulus of the riser 52 from the fluid in the well annulus 66. It should be clear that either the diverter 106 or 108 may be used alone as the separating medium between the fluid in the riser 52 and the fluid in the well annulus 66.”(Col. 9, lines 55-51)
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 Peterman and to have the mechanical barrier activated while the drill string is being run in hole (RIH), in view of Peterman, so as to “sealingly engage a drill string and, thereby, isolate the fluid in the annulus of the riser 52 from the fluid in the well annulus 66.” (Col. 9, lines 55-51).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6230824 B1 to Peterman in view of US 7409995 B2 to Moynahan.
Regarding claim 17: Peterman discloses the claimed invention except 17. (Original) The method of claim 13, further comprising:
extending the drill string through a water jet assembly in the wellhead assembly, wherein the water jet assembly comprises:
a jet assembly body having a wall defining a cavity extending axially through the jet assembly body;
an array of nozzles positioned circumferentially around the wall, wherein each nozzle in the array of nozzles comprises an outlet directed in a radially inward direction from the wall toward a central region in the cavity; and
a water inlet fluidly connected to the array of nozzles,
wherein the water jet assembly is positioned axially between the mechanical barrier and the wellhead assembly opening, and wherein the drill string extends through the cavity; and
using the water jet assembly to spray remnant mud from around the drill string with water, creating a mixture of mud and water.
Moynahan teaches a water jet assembly 100, comprising:
a jet assembly body having a wall defining a cavity extending axially through the jet assembly body;
an array of nozzles122 positioned circumferentially around the wall, wherein each nozzle in the array of nozzles comprises an outlet directed in a radially inward direction from the wall toward a central region in the cavity; and (See figures 2-6)
a water inlet 116 fluidly connected to the array of nozzles 122.
And washing a conduit by spraying the conduit with water (Abstract, col 2, lines 20-33)
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 Peterman and add to his wellhead assembly a cleaning/spraying assembly in the style of Moynahan, so as to wash “undesirable matter off of the exterior of tubular conduits forming a conduit string during trip out of the conduit string within a subterranean well” (Abstract).
Note, in adding the water jet assembly of Moynahan to Peterman, the water jet assembly is around the drill string.
Additionally, 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 Peterman and to have added the water jet assembly axially between the mechanical barrier and the wellhead assembly opening, as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (there are only so many location to place a washing assembly), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, 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 further modified Peterman and use the water jet assembly to spray remnant mud from around the drill string with water, creating a mixture of mud and water, in view of Moynihan, as this would amount to no more than using the water jet assembly in its intended manner (abstract)
Regarding claim 20: Peterman discloses 20. (Original) The method of claim 17, wherein the wellhead assembly further comprises a tertiary wiper 234, figure 5, and
However fails to disclose “positioned axially between the water jet assembly and the wellhead assembly opening” and wherein the method further comprises: pulling the drill string out of hole, wherein during pulling out of hole, the mechanical barrier is activated, the water jet assembly sprays the drill string, and the tertiary wiper wipes around the drill string.
The location of the tertiary wiper vs the mechanical barrier and the water jet assembly is a matter of design choice and the claimed relative position of these elements would be considered a design choice and would "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, 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 Peterman to at some point in time perform the step of pulling the drill string out of hole, as this is notoriously conventional and is well known.
Peterman also discloses a rotating control device 108 and states “The diverters 106 and 108 may be used alternately or together to sealingly engage a drill string and, thereby, isolate the fluid in the annulus of the riser 52 from the fluid in the well annulus 66. It should be clear that either the diverter 106 or 108 may be used alone as the separating medium between the fluid in the riser 52 and the fluid in the well annulus 66.”(Col. 9, lines 55-51)
Additionally, 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 Peterman and to perform the step of wherein during pulling out of hole, the mechanical barrier is activated, in view of Peterman, so as to “sealingly engage a drill string and, thereby, isolate the fluid in the annulus of the riser 52 from the fluid in the well annulus 66.” (Col. 9, lines 55-51).
Finally, 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 Peterman and to perform the steps of “the water jet assembly sprays the drill string, and the tertiary wiper wipes around the drill string”, as this can be considered the normal use of the apparatus and in the intended way amounting to no more than Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4895205 A teaches a pipe washer system.
US 8443893 B1 teaches a pipe cleaning system at a wellhead.
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