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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3 and 5-10, and 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Regan (USP 4,491,345).
In regards to claims 1 and 10, Regan discloses a connector, comprising:
a plurality of locking members (40) configured to engage and disengage a well tool,
each locking member consisting of a dog member configured for activation between an
engaged position and a disengaged position;
wherein each dog member is configured for selective independent activation between the
engaged and the disengaged position unbound from activation of other dog members (see
column 6, lines 9-12 and column 5, lines 53-55) while the connector is coupled to the well tool";
wherein at least one dog member is configured to remain inactive while others of the dog members are activated in the engaged position or the disengaged position (see at least column 5, lines 53-55 and column 6, lines 2-12); and
each locking member comprises a position indicator (120).
Regarding the method step of claim 10, it can be seen between figs. 2 and 4 that the
locking members have been activated and that the position has been determined through visual
inspection. Further column 6, line 58 - column 7, line 7 describes indicator means 120 and how it
is used to determine the position.
In regards to claim 3, Regan further discloses each locking member comprises a piston
(85) disposed within a cylinder (71).
In regards to claims 5 and 19, Regan further discloses each locking member is operable
by hydraulic fluid, the connector further comprising control valves (suitable fittings 93/96 allow
selectively introduction of hydraulic fluid and are thus acting as valves, see column 6, lines 2-12)
operable to apply hydraulic fluid to activate each locking member.
In regards to claim 6, Regan further discloses the well tool comprises one of a well
tubular or wellhead housing (11).
In regards to claims 7 and 18, Regan further discloses the locking members are
configured for remote activation (see column 6, lines 9-12).
In regards to claims 8 and 20, Regan further discloses the connector is configured for
signal communication with a display for remote viewing of an indication of the position of the
locking members (see column 7, lines 3-6).
In regards to claim 9, Regan further discloses the connector is configured for
underwater operation (see abstract).
In regards to claim 12, Regan further discloses operating the locking members
comprises applying hydraulic pressure to the members (See at least abstract).
In regards to claim 13, Regan further discloses the locking members are operated from a
location remote from the connector (see column 6, lines 9-12).
In regards to claim 14, Regan further discloses the locking members are operated while
the connector is coupled to the well tool under water (subsea, see abstract).
In regards to claim 15, Regan further discloses the connector is in signal communication
with a display for remote viewing of an indication of the position of the locking members (see
column 7, lines 3-6).
In regards to claim 16, Regan discloses a connector, comprising:
a plurality of locking members (40) configured for hydraulic activation to engage and
disengage a well tool;
each locking member consisting of a dog member configured for activation between an
engaged position and a disengaged position;
wherein each dog member is configured for selective independent activation between the
engaged and the disengaged position unbound from activation of other dog members (see column 6, lines 9-12 and column 5, lines 53-55) while the connector is coupled to the well tool;
wherein at least one dog member is configured to remain inactive while others of the dog members are activated in the engaged position or the disengaged position (see at least column 5, lines 53-55 and column 6, lines 2-12);
means for providing a position indication of individual members of the plurality of
locking members (pin 120; see instant specification paragraph [0042] which describes the
structure of the "means for providing a position indication" as a pin under broadest reasonable
interpretation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (USP 6,334,633 hereinafter
"Nguyen ).
In regards to claims 4 and 17, Regan discloses the connector of claims 1 and 16 but
does not disclose an electronics module in signal communication with the locking members and
configured to enable the activation of each dog member between the
engaged and the disengaged position.
However, Nguyen teaches a selective locking system wherein an electronics module (at
control panel 39, Fig. 8, the cylinders are remotely actuated by a control system panel 39 - see
FIG. 8), Column. 2, Lns. 58-59) is an electronics module (at control panel 39) in signal
communication (signal, Column 4, Lns. 41-45) with locking members (38, Fig. 8, Column 4,
Lns. 31-41).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Regan with the teaching of Nguyen for the purpose of
providing a sensor to the locking connection for sensing the position and thereby ensure that a
display of the position can be provided from a signal of the sensor (Nguyen, Col. 4, Lns. 31-48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the amended limitation, applicant is again relying on Col. 5, lines 6-7. However, this section is not stating that each cylinder/piston means "70" moves in unison with one another as stated by applicant, but rather that each cylinder/piston moves in unison with the ring "50". Each locking member 40" is provided with its own cylinder means "70" (see fig. 3) as well as its own fluid chambers "90/9 1" (see at least column 5, lines 53-55). Further, column 6, lines 2-12 describes selectively providing hydraulic fluid into chambers 90,91 from a remote, which would in turn individually activate the different locking members 40 based which of the chambers "90/91" is provided with fluid and would allow others to remain inactive, and thus the claim has been met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Matthew D. Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
01/30/2026