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 Objections
Claims 15-17 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15: line 4 should read “disposed at a second circumferential end” line 9 should read “disposing the centralizer”.
In claim 16, line 2 should read “radially outward extending” and will be interpreted as such
In claim 17, line 2 should read “radially inward extending” and will be interpreted as such
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12584360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the lack of certain limitations in the independent claims, the ability to flow fluid through hollow elements, and the end loops contacting each other or not are not patentable distinctions.
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, 2, 4, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dreyfuss (US 3356147 A), hereinafter Dre.
With respect to claim 1, Dre discloses a system, comprising: a centralizer (shown in fig. 1) for holding a sonde housing centered with respect to a downhole tubular (it is capable of this), wherein the centralizer includes at least one support feature (9 or 10 or one half of the centralizer generally depicted by the upper right half or lower left half of fig. 3 between connecting loops 15, 16), wherein the at least one support feature comprises: a first circumferential end with a first end loop (one of the looped portions of either 15 or 16, fig. 3); a second circumferential end with a second end loop (features engaging with 15 or 16, also forming a loop around the pin of the hinge); and an elongated body portion (20 or combination 20, 11) configured to extend axially along a centralizer axis and extend circumferentially about the centralizer axis from the first circumferential end feature to the second circumferential end feature, wherein the elongated body portion is corrugated (shown in figs. 1, 3) with radially inward extending portions (24, 25) and radially outward extending portions (20, 21) alternating along the elongated body portion between the first circumferential end feature and the second circumferential end feature (shown in figs. 1, 3, 4).
With respect to claim 2, Dre further discloses wherein the first end loop is disposed adjacent the second end loop (shown in fig, 3, one pair of loops surrounding hinge pin at 16 and another adjacent pair surrounding hinge pin at 15).
With respect to claim 4, Dre further discloses wherein at least one of the first end loop and the second end loop includes a closed loop (shown in fig. 3).
With respect to claim 7, Dre discloses the first end loop in contact with the second end loop (2 end loops in contact with each other at 15 or 16 in fig. 3).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Dre further discloses wherein the support feature extends 360 degrees around the axis (9 and 10 extend 360 degrees) and where the support feature extends between 170 and 190 degrees (each half of the centralizer connected by hinges extends approximately 180 degrees around the axis as shown in fig. 3).
With respect to claim 10, Dre further discloses wherein the at least one support feature has a uniform cross sectional shape along a length of the at least one support feature (there is a uniform shape along certain lengths of 9, though not along an entire length).
With respect to claim 11, Dre further discloses the centralizer axis coaxial with the central tubular axis (this will be the case when installed in a casing).
With respect to claim 12, Dre discloses support member having a uniform thickness (fig. 3 sows 20 having a uniform thickness).
With respect to claim 13, Dre discloses the first and second end loop separated to create a gap (15 is separated from 16).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 10598000 B2) in light of Rains (US 5803127 A).
With respect to claim 1, Liu discloses With respect to claim 1, Dre discloses a system, comprising: a centralizer (128) configured to be disposed in a radial gap formed between a radially inner surface of a downhole tubular (126) and a radially outer surface of a sonde housing (122), wherein the centralizer includes at least one support feature (combination 129, 140), wherein the at least one support feature comprises: an elongated body portion (129) configured to extend axially along a centralizer axis and extend circumferentially about the centralizer axis from the first circumferential end feature to the second circumferential end feature, wherein the elongated body portion is corrugated (shown in figs. 4A-C) with radially inward extending portions (137) and radially outward extending portions (138) alternating along the elongated body portion (shown in figs. 4A) and wherein the radially inward extending portions are configured to contact the sonde housing (122) and the radially outward extending portions are configured to contact the downhole tubular (126) to hold the sonde housing in a centralized position with respect to the downhole tubular (shown in fig. 4A).
However, Liu fails to disclose end features.
Nevertheless, Rains discloses a centralizer body with end features (spaced ends of corrugated spacer 92 or open-looped ends of 82)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided either spaced or open looped end features on the centralizer body of Liu as taught by Rains (figs. 11-14) in order to provide for a centralizer which can be expanded upon deflection to reduce stress and which can be easily attached as taught by Rains (col. 5 ll. 15-39).
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Rains further discloses wherein the first end loop is disposed adjacent the second end loop and contacting the second loop (figs. 11, 12 show this).
With respect to claims 3 and 6, Rains further discloses wherein at least one of the first end loop and the second end loop includes an open loop, wherein the open loop includes a slot extending axially along a length of the at least one support feature creating a hollow center to permit fluid flow (shown in figs. 11 12).
With respect to claim 8, Rains further discloses wherein the at least one support feature extends between three hundred and forty degrees and three hundred and sixty degrees about the centralizer axis (figs. 12, 14, gap between end portions of fig. 14 is clearly less than 20 degrees and if Applicant disagrees this would have been an obvious modification since this is merely the selection of an optimum range, no criticality being given in pgph. 27 of the instant specification).
With respect to claim 10, Liu further discloses wherein the at least one support feature has a uniform cross sectional shape along a length of the at least one support feature (shown in figs. 4-4C).
With respect to claim 11, Liu further discloses wherein the centralizer axis is coaxial with a central axis of the downhole tubular (shown in fig. 4A).
With respect to claim 12, Liu further discloses wherein the elongated body portion of the at least one support feature has a uniform thickness (shown in figs. 4-4C, col. 15 ll. 29-32).
With respect to claim 13, Rains further discloses the first loop offset from the second loop to create a support gap (this will occur when installing the device).
With respect to claim 14, Liu further discloses wherein a thickness of the elongated body portion of the at least one support feature is between 5-30% of a thickness of the radial gap formed between the radially inner surface of the downhole tubular and the radially outer surface of the sonde housing (col. 2 l. 54 recites a OD for sonde 122 of 2.54 inches, table 1 recites a collar ID of 3 inches, and col. 15 ll. 36-42 recites a thickness between .1 and .3 inches, width of gap = ID of collar – OD sonde = 3-2.54 = .46 inches and thickness of centralizer = .1in, .1/.46 = 27% which falls in the claimed range. Furthermore, col. 7 also teaches expanding the drill collar ID to 3.25 inches which results in a .61inch gap so even a .2 inch thick centralizer falls in the claimed range).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in light of Newburg (US 4250927 A).
With respect to claim 15, Liu discloses a method for using a centralizer and sonde housing comprising the steps of: presenting a centralizer having at least one support feature forming the centralizer around a circumference of the sonde housing and disposing a centralizer between the inner surface of the downhole tubular and the radially outer surface of the sonde housing (discussed supra).
However, Liu fails to disclose the end loops and contacting outer and inner surfaces as claimed.
Nevertheless, Newburg discloses a centralizing device (20) having a first end loop (28c) and a second end loop (26c) the inner portions of which contact the inner member (12) and the outer portions of which contact the outer tubular (14, shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the member of Liu with end loops which contacted the inner and outer members as taught by Newburg (figs. 1, 2, 3) since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results and a reasonable expectation for success.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Liu discloses contacting an inner surface of the downhole tubular with radially outward extending portions of the centralizer and contacting an outer surface of the sonde housing with radially inward extending portions of the centralizer (shown in fig. 4A).
With respect to claim 18, Newburg discloses contacting the first end loop with the second end loop (indirectly via mutual contact with outer and inner members).
With respect to claim 19, Newburg discloses allowing fluid to flow through the first end loop and the second end loop (abstract, Newburg).
With respect to claim 20 Newburg discloses providing an angular offset between the first end loop and the second end loop to create a support gap (shown in fig. 2).
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 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2512116 A, US 4392526 A, US 5047635 A also disclose contacting end loops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights