DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 10/27/2025 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 filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejections under Moyes should be withdrawn as the instant claim recite that each of the metal shells are “triangular shaped when introduced into the wellbore” which is not disclosed by Moyes. The examiner respectfully disagrees for two reasons. First, the claimed shells as being “triangular shaped” is not clearly limited to exclude the curved shapes of Moyes, since the basis for the instant limitation appears solely found within instant figures 2 and 3, and the shapes shown in these figures also include curved portions and therefore the inclusion of a curved portion does not appear to exclude a shape from being triangular shaped as claimed. Second, at least some of the shells of Moyes (as comprising a series as claimed) do appear triangular shaped (where the series of shells as being described as progressively changing shape to “back-to-back frusto-conical shape” col. 22, lines 35-38), where at least the last few of the series could be considered as triangular shaped by one of ordinary skill. Therefore Moyes is considered to teach a shell packer, as claimed with a series of shells being triangular shaped when introduced into the wellbore.
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, 5, 9-11, 13, 16-17, 21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Moyes (US 9,915,119).
In regard to claim 1, Moyes discloses a method for performing zonal isolation comprising: introducing a collapsible shell packer into a wellbore (col. 1, lines 21-23, as in the embodiment of figs 7; as would be placed around production tubing col. 2, lines 62-65); wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a series of collapsible triangular-shaped hollow, metal shells (412; metal as in col. 14, lines 25-28, also see col. 13, lines 26-29) with each of the metal shells being triangular shaped when introduced into the wellbore (at least two shells, i.e. a series, are shown in fig 7A as triangular where col. 22, lines 35-43, describe “changes progressively from curved profile” to the “back-to-back frusto-conical shape” where at least multiple of the shells would be considered “triangular” as broadly interpreted where the instant specification provides no clear definition of what is required and the shells as shown are considered as “triangular”) having a cavity disposed therein (as would occur as placed around base pipe as in e.g. fig 5e), and being directly adjacent to one another (as in fig 7A-7D) and with each being of continuous construction (as shown sides are continuous as best understood as similar to instant figure 7), , collapsing the collapsible hollow, metal shells in the series by compressing the collapsible hollow, metal shell axially to only expand the collapsible hollow, metal shells radially outward, wherein the series of collapsible hollow, metal shells are collapsed until a portion of each the collapsible hollow, metal shells in the series contact an adjacent surface thereby isolating a zone (as would occur e.g. as in fig 7D).
In regard to claim 2, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsing the collapsible hollow, metal shell by compressing the collapsible hollow, metal shell axially is performed by applying pressure to the collapsible hollow, metal shell with a piston (414, 416) in the axial direction (as in fig 7A-D as shown).
In regard to claim 3, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a pointed tip contact surface (317, fig 6a, col. 22, lines 25-28 as applicable to the embodiment of fig 1a-1b).
In regard to claim 5, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer is corrugated in shape (as shown, fig 7A).
In regard to claim 9, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a sealing element (317, fig 6e, col. 22, lines 25-28) on a contact surface of the collapsible shell packer.
In regard to claim 10, Moyes discloses a collapsible shell packer comprising: a series of collapsible triangular-shaped hollow, metal shells (412, as in fig 7, metal as in col. 14, lines 25-28, also see col. 13, lines 26-29) with each of the metal shells being triangular shaped when introduced into the wellbore (at least two shells, i.e. a series, are shown in fig 7A as triangular where col. 22, lines 35-43, describe “changes progressively from curved profile” to the “back-to-back frusto-conical shape” where at least multiple of the shells would be considered “triangular” as broadly interpreted where the instant specification provides no clear definition of what is required and the shells as shown are considered as “triangular”) having a cavity disposed therein (as in fig 7A-7D as disposed on base pipe) and being directly adjacent to one another and with each being of continuous construction (as in fig 7A-7D); wherein each of the collapsible hollow, metal shells in the series is configured to collapse in the axial direction and expand outwardly in the radial direction (as in fig 7A-7D) until each of the collapsible hollow metal shells in the series contacts an adjacent surface (as would occur e.g. as in fig 7D).
In regard to claim 11, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a pointed tip contact surface (317, fig 6a, col. 22, lines 25-28 as applicable to the embodiment of fig 7A-7D).
In regard to claim 13, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer is corrugated in shape (as in fig 7A).
In regard to claim 16, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a sealing element (317, fig 6e, col. 22, lines 25-28) on a contact surface of the collapsible shell packer.
In regard to claim 17, Moyes discloses a system for performing zonal isolation in a wellbore, the system comprising: a collapsible shell packer comprising a series of collapsible hollow, metal shells (at least right two 412, as in fig 7A-7D, metal as in col. 14, lines 25-28, also see col. 13, lines 26-29) having a cavity disposed therein (as placed on base pipe), with each of the metal shells being triangular shaped when introduced into the wellbore (at least two shells, i.e. a series, are shown in fig 7A as triangular where col. 22, lines 35-43, describe “changes progressively from curved profile” to the “back-to-back frusto-conical shape” where at least multiple of the shells would be considered “triangular” as broadly interpreted where the instant specification provides no clear definition and the shells as shown are considered as “triangular”) and with each of the metal shells having a cavity disposed therein (as in fig 7A) and being directly adjacent to one another and with each being of continuous construction (as in fig 7A), and a piston (414, 416) to collapse the collapsible metal shells in the series thereby expanding each of the collapsible metal shells in the outward radial direction (as in fig 7D) until each of the collapsible hollow metal shells in the series contacts an adjacent surface (as would occur to provide sealing).
In regard to claim 21, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a pointed tip contact surface (317, fig 6a, col. 22, lines 25-28 as applicable to the embodiment of fig 7A).
In regard to claim 23, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer comprises a sealing element (317, fig 6e, col. 22, lines 25-28) on a contact surface of the collapsible shell packer.
In regard to claim 25, Moyes discloses wherein the collapsible shell packer is corrugated in shape (fig 7A).
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) 18 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyes in view of White et al. (US 6,446,717). Moyes discloses all the limitations of this claim as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, except for a groove in the exterior of a conduit (i.e. production tubing) and including a locking ring, or two sealing elements disposed on an exterior surface of the shell disposed about a pointed tip of the shell.
In regard to claim 18, White et al. disclose a conduit (51) comprising a groove (25, col. 5, lines 65-66, where engaged between ridges) in the exterior of the conduit; wherein the piston comprises a locking ring (43); and wherein the locking ring is configured to lock into the groove after actuation of the piston (as in fig 3, right side). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Moyes with a locking arrangement, as taught by White et al. in order to lock the system in an expanded arrangement to avoid unsetting.
In regard to claim 26, White et al. disclose a method of performing zonal isolation wherein a shell packer includes two sealing elements disposed on an exterior surface of the shell (65 as surrounding 63 or 64 with sealing element on either side) disposed about a pointed tip (63, 64) of the hollow metal shell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Moyes with two sealing elements disposed about a pointed tip on the exterior surface of the shell packer, as taught by White et al., in order to provide better sealing and engagement upon expansion with an outer surface.
Claim(s) 7-8, 15, 19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyes in view of Rothnie et al. (US 2021/0087907). Moyes discloses all the limitations of these claims, as applied to claims 1, 10 and 17 above, except for the shell packer includes a piston on one end and a piston housing on the opposing end, or a plurality of packers interconnected or that the piston of one packer is housed in a housing of an adjacent shell packer.
In regard to claim 7, Rothnie et al. disclose a method wherein a shell packer further comprises a piston on one end (32 as within each 30) and a piston housing on the opposing end (fig 1, where each 30 comprises a piston 32 housed in 30a, see paragraph 55, fig 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Moyes with a piston and housing, as taught by Rothnie et al. in order to ensure each segment receives an appropriate setting force directly applied ensuring adequate and desired expansion.
In regard to claim 8, Rothnie et al. disclose a method wherein there are a plurality of collapsible shell packers interconnected (fig 1, with each 26/14) such that the piston (32) of one collapsible shell packer is housed in the piston housing of an adjacent collapsible shell packer (fig 1, where each 30 comprises a piston 32, see paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Moyes with a plurality of packers, each with a piston housed in an adjacent housing, as taught by Rothnie et al., in order to provide each segment with a setting force directly applied ensuring adequate and desired expansion.
In regard to claim 15, Rothnie et al. disclose a shell packer further comprises a piston on one end (32 as within each 30) and a piston housing on the opposing end (fig 1, where each 30 comprises a piston 32 housed in 30a, see paragraph 55, fig 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Moyes with a piston and housing, as taught by Rothnie et al. in order to ensure each segment receives an appropriate setting force directly applied ensuring adequate and desired expansion.
In regard to claim 19, Rothnie et al. disclose a system including a packer (14) wherein a piston (32 as within each 30) is a component of the collapsible shell packer and is disposed on one end of the collapsible shell packer (fig 1, where each 30 comprises a piston 32, see paragraph 55); wherein the collapsible shell packer further comprises a piston housing on the opposing end (fig 1, where each 30 comprises a piston 32 housed in 30a, see paragraph 55, fig 2b); and further wherein there are a plurality of collapsible shell packers interconnected (fig 1, with each 26/14) such that the piston of one collapsible shell packer is housed in the piston housing of an adjacent collapsible shell packer (as in fig 1, where each 30 houses a piston and is adjacent another packer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Moyes with a plurality of packers, each with a piston housed in an adjacent housing, as taught by Rothnie et al., in order to provide multiple packers for better sealing (as providing redundant sealing structures) and to reduce an overall length of the device by stacking packers (with their pistons) adjacently.
In regard to claim 24, Rothnie et al. disclose a shell packer wherein there are a plurality of collapsible shell packers interconnected (fig 1, with each 26/14) such that the piston (32) of one collapsible shell packer is housed in the piston housing of an adjacent collapsible shell packer (fig 1, where each 30 comprises a piston 32, see paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Moyes with a plurality of packers, each with a piston housed in an adjacent housing, as taught by Rothnie et al., in order to provide each segment with a setting force directly applied ensuring adequate and desired expansion.
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
11/28/2025