DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 15b appears twice in Fig. 6 pointing to different structures and in Fig. 2 10 and 15 both point to the same structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the first motor is arranged closes to the wireline” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the first motor is the structure closes to the wireline out of all of the structures of the tool or if the first motor is merely closest to the wireline of the motors (i.e., the first motor and the second motor). For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first motor is merely closest to the wireline of the motors (i.e., the first motor and the second motor)
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the second motor is arranged closes to the wireline” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the second motor is the structure closes to the wireline out of all of the structures of the tool or if the second motor is merely closest to the wireline of the motors (i.e., the first motor and the second motor). For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the second motor is merely closest to the wireline of the motors (i.e., the first motor and the second motor)
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallundbaek (US 2010/0018775) in view of Turner (US 2018/0230800).
With respect to claim 1: Hallundbaek discloses a wireline cleaning tool (Fig. 1) for collecting elements such as debris, shavings or other elements from a well fluid in a well, comprising:
- an electric motor (9; ¶ [0051]) powered through a wireline (16; ¶ [0042, 0051]),
- a milling or drilling head (2) comprising at least one inlet (11),
- a pump (8) rotated by the electric motor for providing a suction of well fluid containing elements, such as debris or shavings, in through the inlet (¶ [0040-41, 0051]),
- a chamber (4) fluidly connected with the inlet for receiving the well fluid and for collecting elements in the well fluid (¶ [0040-41, 0048]; Fig. 1), and
- a filtering device (5) arranged for filtering the elements from the well fluid before the fluid passes through an outlet (6) of the tool (¶ [0040-41, 0051]; Fig. 1), wherein the wireline cleaning tool further comprises the electric motor for rotating the milling or drilling head (¶ [00145, 0051-53]).
Hallundbaek does not disclose the electric motor is two electric motors where the first electric motor powers the pump and the second electric motor is for rotating the drilling or milling head.
Turner teaches it is known in the art for a downhole tool to have a first motor (16; ¶ [0029, 0038]) for to drive a first device (50; ¶ [0038]) and a second motor (18; ¶ [0029, 0039]) to drive a second device (52; ¶ [0039]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hallundbaek to have two electric motors instead of one in view of the dual motor system of Turner with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so is a mere duplication of parts and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, having two separate motors allows for more control of the operation since the motors can be controlled separately (Turner ¶ [0034, 0046]).
With respect to claim 2: Turner from the combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches the first electric motor comprises a first shaft (42) being connected with the pump (i.e., first device) (¶ [0038]), and the second electric motor comprising a second shaft (40) being connected with the milling or drilling head (i.e., second device) (¶ [0039]).
With respect to claim 3: Turner from the combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches the first shaft and the second shaft are coaxially arranged and rotate independently of each other (¶ [0031, 0034, 0046]; Fig. 2)
With respect to claim 12: Hallundbaek from the combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches the pump comprises a pump inlet (inlet to 8 in Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a chamber outlet (outlet of 4 in Fig. 1) downstream of the filtering device (chamber, 4, is downstream of the filtering device, 5; arrows show fluid flow from chamber to filtering device to pump).
With respect to claim 13: The combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches a downhole tool string comprising the wireline cleaning tool according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hallundbaek from the combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches the downhole tool string also comprises a driving unit/downhole tractor (¶ [0058]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hallundbaek and Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2023/0110460).
With respect to claim 10: The combination of Hallundbaek and Turner teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except for a first sensor for measuring a current demand of the first motor and a second sensor for measuring a current demand of the second motor. Anderson teaches it is known in the art to have a first sensor (18) for measuring a demand current of a first motor (14; ¶ [0080]) and a second sensor (18b) for measuring a demand current of a second motor (22; ¶ [0080]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sensors of Anderson with the invention of Hallundbaek and Turner with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow the maximum allowable motor speed to be more precisely determined and optimized (Anderson ¶ [0081]).
With respect to claim 11: Turner from the combination of Hallundbaek, Turner, and Anderson further teaches a control unit (¶ [0034]; “control unit”) receiving input from the first sensor and the second sensor for controlling the power distribution to the first motor and the second motor (¶ [0034, 0046]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallundbaek (US 2010/0018775) in view of Turner (US 2018/0230800) and Anderson (US 2023/0110460).
With respect to claim 14: The combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches a method of controlling a wireline cleaning tool according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above)
Hallundbaek from the combination of Hallundbaek and Turner further teaches further teaches the method comprises:
- lowering the wireline cleaning tool into a well (¶ [0058]; Fig. 1),
- activating at least one of the first electric motor and the second electric motor (¶ [0051]),
- changing the power to one of the first electric motor and the second electric motor based on the power demand (¶ [0034, 0046]).
The combination of Hallundbaek and Turner does not teach: - measuring a power demand, such as a current, in the first electric motor and the second electric motor, and the power demand in the changing step is a measured power demand.
Anderson teaches measuring a power demand, such as a current, in the first electric motor and the second electric motor (¶ [0080]) and using the measured power demand to make changes (¶ [0099]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the measuring and use of the measured value of Anderson with the invention of Hallundbaek and Turner with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow the maximum allowable motor speed to be more precisely determined and optimized (Anderson ¶ [0081]).
With respect to claim 15: Anderson from the combination of Hallundbaek, Turner, and Anderson further teaches changing of the power distribution in a predetermined pattern based on the measured power demand (¶ [0080-81, 0099]; the new pattern is determined before it is implemented and is therefore predetermined).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
With respect to claim 4, the art of record does not teach or make obvious the use of a gear section interacting with other structures in the claimed manner in combination with the other claim limitations. Specifically, while gear sections are known in the art it would not be obvious to have the gear section interacting with the first and second shafts in the claimed manner with the dual electric motors and the filtering while drilling.
With respect to claims 5 and 8, the art of record does not teach or make obvious the configuration of the motors relative to each other (see 112(b) above) with the respective shafts going through the opposite motor in combination with the other claim limitations. Specifically, while shafts going through motors are known in the art it would not be obvious to further modify the references to have the claimed configuration in combination with the claimed structure of the shafts, motors, filtering device, pump, and milling/drilling head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights