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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 all recite “the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies of the connection module” which is not found as supported in the specification as originally filed (i.e. the specification of 17/090,184, as filed on 11/5/2020). The remaining claims also contain this new matter limitation as being dependent on one of claims 1, 16 and 20.
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) 1-3, 11-12, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Halleraker et al. (US 2016/0071634).
In regard to claim 1, Halleraker et al. disclose a connection module, comprising: a cable segment housing (12); a conductor (2) extending into the cable segment housing (as in fig 1); and a movement arrestor (1 and 3 at least) substantially surrounding the conductor and axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (as in fig 1-2), the movement arrestor having a non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising a ceramic (1 as in paragraph 10, the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies of the connection module (inherent to “ceramic” as material).
In regard to claim 2, Halleraker et al. disclose wherein the non-PEEK non-conductive portion of the movement arrestor has a tensile strength derating factor of less than 45% at 300°F (inherent to ceramic materials as best understood).
In regard to claim 3, Halleraker et al. disclose wherein the movement arrestor further includes a slip fit portion (3) that engages the conductor and slips within a far end of the non-PEEK non-conductive portion to axially fix the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (as in fig 2 and as assembled in fig 1).
In regard to claim 11, Halleraker et al. disclose wherein the non-PEEK non-conductive portion includes a conductive inner portion (3) and a non-PEEK non-conductive layer (1) insulating the conductive inner portion from the housing.
In regard to claim 12, Halleraker et al. disclose wherein the conductor is fixed in both axial directions relative to the cable segment housing (as assembled in fig !).
In regard to claim 16, Halleraker et al. disclose a tool, comprising: one or more electronic elements (pump or compressor as in paragraph 3); and a connection module operably coupling the one or more electronic elements with a conductor, the connection module comprising: a cable segment housing (12); a conductor (2) extending into the cable segment housing (as in fig 1); and a movement arrestor (1 and 3 at least) substantially surrounding the conductor and axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (as in fig 1-2), the movement arrestor having a non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising a ceramic (1 as in paragraph 10, the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies of the connection module (inherent to “ceramic” as material).
In regard to claim 18, Halleraker et al. disclose wherein the non-PEEK non-conductive portion includes a conductive inner portion (3) and a non-PEEK non-conductive layer (1) insulating the conductive inner portion from the housing.
In regard to claim 19, Halleraker et al. disclose wherein the non-PEEK non-conductive portion of the movement arrestor has a tensile strength derating factor of less than 45% at 300°F (inherent to ceramic materials as best understood).
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) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (US 2019/0186256) in view of Bloemenkamp (US 2017/0285212).
In regard to claim 1, Palmer et al. disclose a connection module, comprising: a cable segment housing (220, paragraph 43); a conductor (214) extending into the cable segment housing; and a movement arrestor (222) substantially surrounding the conductor (fig 3) and axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing, (at 224, as in paragraph 51 as being threaded together and retained as in fig 3), the movement arrestor having a non-PEEK non-conductive portion (paragraph 38). Palmer et al. do not disclose that the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprises a ceramic, the non-PEEK conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies of the connection module.
Bloemenkamp discloses alternative materials for a non-PEEK non-conductive portion of a downhole module comprising a ceramic (paragraph 42), the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies (inherent to ceramic as claimed; note the ceramic as disclosed by Bloemenkamp would not include allowing current at “higher frequencies” as this is only described in reference to “metal” PEEK material which does not apply to ceramic material as disclosed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the non-PEEK non-conductive material of Palmer et al. for that of Bloemenkamp since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for a non-PEEK non-conductive material) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 2, in the combination above, as best understood, the use of ceramic would provide the non-PEEK non-conductive portion as having a tensile strength derating factor of less than 45% at 300F.
In regard to claim 3, Palmer et al. teach wherein the movement arrestor further includes a slip fit portion that engages the conductor (as in fig 3) and slips within a far end of the non-PEEK non-conductive portion to axially fix the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (as in fig 3).
In regard to claim 4, Palmer et al. teach wherein the slip fit portion engages the conductor via threads (at 224, paragraphs 38, 51) in the slip fit portion and threads in the conductor.
In regard to claim 5, Palmer et al. teach wherein the conductor is swaged at an exposed end of the slip fit portion to axially fix the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (end of paragraph 38, “compression fittings” as known in the art include swag fittings).
In regard to claim 6, Palmer et al. teach wherein the movement arrestor further includes a mechanically bonded portion (234) that engages the conductor and is held within a far end of the non-PEEK, non-conductive portion (as within portion 232, which may be considered a portion of the non-PEEK, non-conductive portion, paragraph 34 as being non-PEEK, non-conductive) via a mechanical force (as assembled as shown fig 3) to axially fix the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (as in fig 3).
In regard to claim 7, Palmer et al. teach wherein the conductor has threads on one end thereof and the movement arrestor further comprises threads which engage the threads of the conductor (paragraphs 38, 51).
In regard to claim 8, Palmer et al. teach wherein the movement arrestor further includes a spring contact portion (end of paragraph 38, “interlocking protrusions” may be considered a spring contact portion).
In regard to claim 9, Palmer et al. teach wherein the movement arrestor further includes a collet portion for axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (end of paragraph 38, “interlocking protrusions” may be considered a collet portion).
In regard to claim 10, Palmer et al. teach wherein the movement arrestor further includes a wedge portion for axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (end of paragraph 38, “interlocking protrusions” may be considered a wedge portion).
In regard to claim 11, Palmer et al. teach wherein the non-PEEK, non-conductive portion includes a conductive inner portion (234, as in paragraph 46 as comprising metal) and a non-PEEK, non-conductive layer (232, paragraph 34) insulating the conductive inner portion from the housing.
In regard to claim 12, Palmer et al. teach wherein the conductor is fixed in both axial directions relative to the cable segment housing (as in fig 3, as fixed by shoulder 226 and sleeve 208).
In regard to claim 13, Palmer et al. teach wherein the conductor is a stranded conductor (paragraph 23, last sentence).
In regard to claim 14, Palmer et al. teach wherein the conductor is fixed in only one axial direction relative to the cable segment housing (as attached with conductor, only fixed by seating at 225 and as in fig 3 the conductor is not fixed in a left-ward axial direction).
In regard to claim 15, Palmer et al. disclose wherein the one axial direction is a direction of contraction of the conductor (conductor would contract axially and therefore in the one axial direction).
In regard to claim 16, Palmer et al. teach a tool, comprising: one or more electronic elements (102/116); and a connection module (200) operably coupling the one or more electronic elements with a conductor, the connection module comprising: a cable segment housing (220, paragraph 43); and a movement arrestor (222) substantially surrounding the conductor and axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (at 224, as in paragraph 51 as being threaded together and retained as in fig 3), the movement arrestor having a non-PEEK non-conductive portion (paragraph 38). Palmer et al. do not disclose that the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprises a ceramic, the non-PEEK conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies of the connection module.
Bloemenkamp discloses alternative materials for a non-PEEK non-conductive portion of a downhole tool comprising a ceramic (paragraph 42), the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies (inherent to ceramic as claimed; note the ceramic as disclosed by Bloemenkamp would not include allowing current at “higher frequencies” as this is only described in reference to “metal” PEEK material which does not apply to ceramic material as disclosed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the non-PEEK non-conductive material of Palmer et al. for that of Bloemenkamp since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for a non-PEEK non-conductive material) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 17, Palmer et al. teach wherein the conductor is attached to the movement arrestor by threads, swaging, soldering, brazing, adhesive or a collet (paragraphs 38, 51).
In regard to claim 18, Palmer et al. teach wherein the non-PEEK, non conductive portion includes a conductive inner portion (234, paragraph 46 as comprising metal) and a non-PEEK, non-conductive layer (232, paragraph 44) insulating the conductive inner portion from the cable segment housing.
In regard to claim 19, in the combination above, as best understood, the use of ceramics would provide a tensile strength derating factor of less than 45% at 300F.
In regard to claim 20, Palmer et al. disclose a well system, comprising: a wellbore located within a subterranean formation (fig 1); a tool suspended within the wellbore with a wellbore conveyance (fig 1), the tool including: one or more electronic elements (102/116); and a connection module (200) operably coupling the one or more electronic elements with a conductor, the connection module comprising: a cable segment housing (220, paragraph 43); and a movement arrestor (222) substantially surrounding the conductor and axially fixing the conductor relative to the cable segment housing (at 224, as in paragraph 51 as being threaded together and retained as in fig 3), the movement arrestor having a non-PEEK non-conductive portion (paragraph 38). Palmer et al. do not disclose that the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprises a ceramic, the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies.
Bloemenkamp discloses alternative materials for a non-PEEK non-conductive portion of a downhole system comprising a ceramic (paragraph 42), the non-PEEK non-conductive portion comprising the ceramic operable to remain electrically non-conductive over all operable electrical frequencies (inherent to ceramic as claimed; note the ceramic as disclosed by Bloemenkamp would not include allowing current at “higher frequencies” as this is only described in reference to “metal” PEEK material which does not apply to ceramic material as disclosed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the non-PEEK non-conductive material of Palmer et al. for that of Bloemenkamp since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for a non-PEEK non-conductive material) with a reasonable expectation of success is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 21, in the combination above, as best understood, the use of ceramics would provide the non-PEEK non-conductive portion as having a tensile strength derating factor of less than 45% at 300F.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watson (US 2010/0167582) also disclose PEEK and ceramic as known alternative insulator materials (paragraph 34) in downhole applications. Mueller et al. (US 2014/0144699) also disclose PEEK and ceramic as known alternative insulator materials (paragraph 32) in downhole applications. Buda et al. (US 2014/0144614) also disclose PEEK and ceramic as known alternative insulator materials (paragraph 32) in downhole applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D Andrews whose telephone number is (571)272-6558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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.
/D. ANDREWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
9/29/2026
