DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 3/19/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 26-30 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.
Claims 26 and 27 lack antecedent basis for “the wellbore seal” and are therefore indefinite. It appears these limitations should recite – the wellbore tool seal – as in claim 28.
Claim 28 recites “said pump being operable to discharge fluid from a reservoir or the wellbore within the elongate housing” which is indefinite since it is not clear how “the wellbore within the elongate housing” would be distinct from a reservoir as previously claimed. Alternatively, if this claim is intended to recite that the pump discharges from the wellbore to below the tool, the claim would be further indefinite as previously specifically reciting that “the housing does not provide a flow path for fluid out of the bottom chamber to a position above the seal through the housing” where it appears that if the pump is discharging from the wellbore (necessarily above the seal) to a position below, it would provide such a flow path.
Claims 29-30 are indefinite as being dependent on an indefinite 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.
Claim(s) 26, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US 2,696,258) in view of Huber (US 2,769,498) and Duphorne (US 2015/0330214).
In regard to claim 28, Greene discloses an apparatus for verifying sealing of an abandoned well comprising: an elongate housing (17/14a as in fig 1,2) extending between top and bottom ends locatable within a wellbore suspended only from a wireline (as shown in fig 1 and 2, with top eye connection to wireline) and retrievable within the wellbore barrier from a the wireline; a wellbore tool seal (17) located around said housing operable to engage upon said wellbore and to be expanded into contact therewith so as to seal an annulus between said housing and said wellbore barrier whereupon the housing and tool seal define and seal a top end of a bottom chamber below the bottom end of the housing as in fig 2, where packer and bottom end of housing define top end of chamber below), wherein the elongate housing does not provide a flow path for fluid out of the bottom chamber through the housing to a position above the tool seal (as in fig 1 and 2, as not above 17); and wherein fluid is discharged from a reservoir (14a) into a the bottom chamber (as in fig 2). Greene do not disclose a pump located within said elongate housing, said pump being operable to discharge a fluid from a reservoir or the wellbore within the elongate housing into the bottom chamber independently of the wellbore seal engagement or a pressure sensor, although the fluid (15) within the housing is released below the housing (as in fig 2).
Huber discloses an apparatus for verifying sealing of an abandoned well comprising: an elongate housing (21) suspended only from a wireline (20); a wellbore tool seal (24 or 25) and a pump (32) located within the elongate housing, the pump being operable to discharge a fluid from a reservoir (22) within the elongate housing independently of the wellbore seal engagement (col. 4, lines 42-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the explosive discharge of the apparatus of Greene with the pump of Huber since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. It would have been further obvious to provide that the seal and pump operate independently, as taught by Huber, in order to ensure the seal is fully activated prior to releasing the fluid. Huber also do not disclose a pressure sensor.
Duphorne disclose an apparatus for verifying sealing of an abandoned well comprising: at least one pressure sensor (170a-c, paragraph 14) operable to monitor the pressure within a bottom chamber against a wellbore barrier (as in fig 1 over cement plug 150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the apparatus of Greene as modified by Huber with a pressure sensor as taught by Duphorne in order to provide information about the integrity of the plug (as in Duphorne, paragraph 14).
In regard to claim 26, Greene discloses wherein the wellbore seal is engaged by longitudinal movement of an inner portion of the apparatus relative to an outer portion (as in fig 1 vs fig 2, inner portion 14C moves longitudinally relative to portions of 17 as engaged in fig 2).
In regard to claim 29, Greene, Huber and Duphorne disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 28 above, except for a processor operable to receive a measurement. Duphorne also discloses a processor operable to receive a measurement from the at least one pressure sensor (190 as in paragraph 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the apparatus of Greene as modified by Huber and Duphorne with a processor, as taught by Duphorne in order to receive and process sensor measurement to determine a parameter of interest (as in Duphorne, paragraph 15, 16, also see claim 5).
In regard to claim 30, Duphorne discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine if the bottom chamber is leaking (paragraph 14-16 as determining integrity of plug).
In regard to claim 31, Greene discloses a method for sealing an abandoned wellbore comprising: retrievably locating a housing within a wellbore above a location to be sealed from only a wireline (as in fig 1, as suspended from above with wireline connected to eye socket at top of apparatus);engaging a seal element (17 as in fig 2) located along said housing into engagement with said wellbore forming a bottom chamber below the bottom end of the housing (as in fig 2), wherein the housing does not provide a flow path for fluid out of the bottom chamber to a position above the seal through the housing (as in fig 2); activating a device (31) within the housing so as to discharge a fluid from a reservoir within the housing into a region below the seal element (as in fig 2). Greene do not disclose activating with a motor, a pump within the housing so as to discharge fluid from a reservoir within the housing into a region below the seal element; or monitoring the pressure within the bottom chamber for leaking through the use of a pressure sensor operably coupled to the bottom chamber.
Huber discloses a method for sealing an abandoned wellbore comprising: retrievably locating a housing (21) above a location to be sealed from only a wireline (20); and activating with a motor (M as in fig 1, on top of pump 32, similar to 62 as in fig 2, col. 3, lines 15-19), a pump (32) located within the elongate housing, the pump being operable to discharge a fluid from a reservoir (22) within the elongate housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the explosive discharge of the method of Greene with the pump of Huber since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. It would have been further obvious to provide that the seal and pump operate independently, as taught by Huber, in order to ensure the seal is fully activated prior to releasing the fluid. Huber also do not disclose monitoring with a pressure sensor.
Duphorne disclose an apparatus for verifying sealing of an abandoned well comprising: monitoring pressure within a bottom chamber for leaking through the use of a pressure sensor (170a-c, paragraph 14) operably coupled to the bottom chamber (as in fig 1 over cement plug 150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Greene as modified by Huber with the monitoring as taught by Duphorne in order to provide information about the integrity of the plug (as in Duphorne, paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Huber and Duphorne as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Young (US 4,180,132).
Greene in view of Huber and Duphorne discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied below except for wherein the wellbore seal acts against at least one collet arm engagable on the wellbore to compress the wellbore seal between the at least one collet arm and a portion of the outer portion of the apparatus below the wellbore seal. Young discloses an apparatus comprising a wellbore seal (22a,,b,c) and wherein the wellbore seal acts against at least one collet arm (51) engagable on the wellbore to compress the wellbore seal between the at least one collet arm and a portion of an outer portion of the apparatus below the wellbore seal (as in fig 11D, 22 as compressed between 51 and 70/73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the wellbore seal of Greene, as modified by Huber and Duphorne above, for that of Young, including the collet arm, in order to provide better anchoring to the wellbore other than the engagement of the seal to ensure the tool remains in place during the wellbore operation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
4/8/2026