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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Borak is configured to be directly connected to a tubing string and thus fails to meet the claimed limitations appears accurate but Applicant’s sleeve is capable of being directly coupled to a tubing sleeve as well either through close contact therewith, welding, bolting, or the like and thus also fails to meet the claimed limitations resulting in 112 issues as discussed below. Applicant is encouraged to claim that the sleeve is not, in use, directly connected to a tubing string. Furthermore, Jennings (US 4595063 A) reads on the claims as discussed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Since the sleeve 24 of Applicant’s invention is metallic and has a smooth outer surface, it is not described how this structure is not capable of (equating to not configured to) being directly connected to a tubing string since a tubing string could be directly connected to this structure via close contact, a bolted connection, welding, and the like. The lack of threads on 24 does not preclude a direct attachment to a tubing string.
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. Since the sleeve 24 of Applicant’s invention is metallic and has a smooth outer surface, it is not described how this structure is not capable of (equating to not configured to) being directly connected to a tubing string since a tubing string could be directly connected to this structure via close contact, a bolted connection, welding, and the like. The lack of threads on 24 does not preclude a direct attachment to a tubing string.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 4595063 A) in light of Nelson (US 3353595 A).
With respect to claim 1, Jennings discloses a tubing head assembly for housing a tubing hanger in a well completion system, the well completion system including the tubing head system comprising: a tubing head (38) connectable to the top of a wellhead (element to which 38 is threaded shown at the bottom of fig. 1 near numerals 40, 148, 150, etc) at the upper end of a well bore, the tubing head comprising an axially extending central bore (shown in fig. 1); and a tubular adapter sleeve (34) configured to be secured and sealed in the central bore, the adapter sleeve including an axially extending sleeve bore (shown in fig. 1, 2) which is configured to receive the tubing hanger (20 or 22); wherein in use of the tubing head assembly, the tubing hanger is positioned in the sleeve bore and the adapter sleeve is positioned in the central bore to thereby position the tubing hanger in the tubing head (shown in fig. 1).
However, Jennings fails to disclose a christmas tree
Nevertheless, Nelson discloses a wellhead (20/30 in fig. 10) on top of which rests a tubing head (28), on top of which is a Christmas tree (95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a Christmas tree in Jennings as taught by Nelson 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 claim 2, Jennings further discloses wherein the adapter sleeve comprises an annular tubing hanger landing shoulder (50), and wherein in use of the tubing head assembly the tubing hanger is supported on the tubing hanger landing shoulder (shown in fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Jennings and Nelson further discloses wherein the wellhead comprises a wellhead bore having a first nominal diameter and the central bore has a second nominal diameter which is approximately the same as the first nominal diameter (shown in figs. 4, 5, Nelson, fig. 1 Jennings).
With respect to claim 4, Jennings further discloses wherein the tubing head comprises a first locking profile (152) located in the central bore and the adapter sleeve comprises a first locking element (62) which is engageable with the first locking profile to thereby secure the adapter sleeve to the tubing head (shown in fig. 2).
With respect to claim 5, Jennings further discloses wherein the tubing head comprises an annular first sealing profile (portion of tubing head which contacts 70) located in the central bore and the adapter sleeve comprises a first sealing element (70) which is configured to sealingly engage the first sealing profile to thereby seal an annulus between the central bore and the adapter sleeve (shown in figs. 1, 2).
With respect to claim 6, Jennings further discloses wherein the first sealing profile is approximately flush with or recessed in the central bore (shown in fig. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Jennings further discloses wherein the adapter sleeve comprises an annular second sealing profile (portion of adapter sleeve which contacts 70) and the first sealing element is configured to sealingly engage both the first and second sealing profiles to thereby seal the annulus between the central bore and the adapter sleeve (shown in fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Jennings further discloses wherein the adapter sleeve comprises a second locking profile (groove of 154) located in the sleeve bore which is operatively engageable by a second locking element (spline of 154) on the tubing hanger to thereby secure the tubing hanger to the adapter sleeve (fig. 2), and wherein the sleeve bore comprises an annular third sealing profile (portion of 56 which engages 68) configured to be sealingly engaged by a second sealing element (68) on the tubing hanger to thereby seal an annulus between the tubing hanger and the adapter sleeve (fig. 2 shows this).
With respect to claim 9, Nelson discloses a means for orienting the adapter sleeve to the tubing head (spring loaded lug 73 engaging groove 72 on the tubing head is equivalent to elements 68, 65, 66 of the instant invention), which is obviously incorporable into Jennings.
With respect to claim 10, Nelson discloses wherein the means for orienting the adapter sleeve to the tubing head comprises a key (73) supported on the adapter sleeve and a corresponding slot (72) formed in the central bore, and wherein the slot is positioned so as to receive the key when the adapter sleeve is in a predetermined orientation relative to the tubing head (col. 8 ll. 55-73).
With respect to claim 11, Nelson discloses means for orienting the tubing hanger to the adapter sleeve (helical groove 80/79 and key 94 is a functional is equivalent to elements 70 and key of the instant invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-14, 17-21 are 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
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 01/23/2026