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
If applicable, The Office would like to remind Applicant of the time limits set forth under 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: hydraulic mechanism;
mechanical mechanism;
line attachment mechanism;
in the claims
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 13 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): "The system of claim 1, further comprising a logging tool configured to be conveyed through the wellbore from a surface of the wellbore via the cable looped around the pulley collar.” Claim 13 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 already includes the limitation(s) “…a cable looped about the pulley collar and configured to enable a logging tool to be conveyed from the wellbore to a surface of the wellbore.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 14 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grayson (US 3731626).
Regarding claim 14, Grayson teaches: A method for conveying wellbore tools into a wellbore, comprising:
deploying an anchor (Grayson 53),
a pulley collar (Grayson near 45), and
a cable (Grayson 25) into the wellbore via at least one (Grayson 35) of a drill string, a wellbore tractor, a torpedo, or a pump mechanism;
releasing the anchor from the at least one of the drill string or the wellbore tractor;
securing (Grayson 5:6-19) the anchor within the wellbore to anchor the pulley collar in the wellbore;
looping (Grayson near 45) the cable about the pulley collar; and pulling (Grayson 2:47-57) the cable to a surface of the wellbore to form a looped cable (Grayson near 45) in the wellbore.
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) 1, 8, 10-11, 13, 15 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson in view of Lanmon (US 4484628).
Regarding claim 1, Grayson teaches: A pulley-based wellbore deployment system, comprising: a pulley collar (Grayson near 45); an anchor (Grayson 53) coupled to the pulley collar and configured to anchor the pulley collar into a wellbore; and a cable (Grayson 25/near 45) looped about the pulley collar and configured (Grayson Fig. 1) to enable a downhole tool (Grayson comprising 66) to be conveyed from the wellbore to a surface of the wellbore.
But does not expressly state the downhole tool is a logging tool
Lanmon teaches using wireline to convey downhole tools wherein the tool is a perforating gun or a logging tool (Lanmon 4:21-34).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Grayson to include using a logging tool with the wireline assembly in order to allow the operator to perform a logging operation in a known and predictable way.
Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Grayson and Lanmon teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the anchor includes at least one of a hydraulic mechanism or a mechanical mechanism (Grayson 53) each configured to actuate the anchor to secure the anchor to a wall of the wellbore.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Grayson and Lanmon teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the cable includes at least one (Grayson 25) of a slickline a wireline, a composite cable, an e-line, and a fiber optic cable.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Grayson and Lanmon teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising a cable spool (Grayson 2:46-57) configured to carry the cable, the cable spool configured to unspool the cable after the cable is looped around the pulley collar.
Regarding claim 13, teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising a logging tool (Lanmon 4:21-34) configured to be conveyed through the wellbore from a surface of the wellbore via the cable looped around the pulley collar.
Regarding claim 15, Grayson teaches: The method of claim 14, but does not expressly state further comprising: attaching a logging tool to the looped cable; deploying the logging tool into the wellbore via the looped cable; and measuring one or more wellbore parameters via the logging tool.
Lanmon teaches using wireline to convey downhole tools wherein the tool is a perforating gun or a logging tool (Lanmon 4:21-34).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified Grayson to include using a logging tool with the wireline assembly in order to allow the operator to perform a logging operation in a known and predictable way.
Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-7, 9, 12 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.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Sparks (US 4049365) a pulley-based wellbore deployment system, comprising: a pulley collar; an anchor coupled to the pulley collar and configured to anchor the pulley collar into a wellbore; and a cable looped about the pulley collar and configured to enable a tool to be conveyed from the wellbore to a surface of the wellbore.
Wallace (US 1186351) teaches a downhole tool comprising a wireline looped around a plurality of pullies on the downhole tool.
Nackerud (US 6454024) teaches a downhole tool comprising a looped wireline attachment at the top of the tool, the tool configured to be pulled through a bit at the bottom of a BHA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Carroll whose telephone number is (571)272-4808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 2:00-10:00 PM EDT.
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.
/David Carroll/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights