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 7/15/26 have been fully considered.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The claimed deflector has many limitations that are functional in nature, i.e. “configured to”. The examiner agrees that the prior device is not specifically designed to perform the same operation as envisioned by applicant, however it would be capable of the claimed functions and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" MPEP 2114. A functional claim limitation is considered met if the apparatus of the prior art can perform the function.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 20020070018 A1 to Buyaert, as evidenced by US 4397355 A to McLamore.
Regarding claim 30: Buyaert discloses 30. (Original) A bridge plug assembly for use in forming an alloy plug on an existing annular seal that encircles an oil/gas wellbore tubular body (note “for use in forming an alloy plug on an existing annular seal that encircles an oil/gas wellbore tubular body” is considered the indented use of the bridge plug assembly, and an "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" MPEP 2114. A functional claim limitation is considered met if the apparatus of the prior art can perform the function., furthermore the “alloy plug” and “existing annular seal” are not considered to be positively claimed. ), said assembly comprising:
a bridge plug 34 operable to expand against and engage with the wellbore tubular body such that the bridge plug is retained in position within the wellbore tubular body ([0034],); (See US 4397355 A to McLamore , who teaches a whipstock with an anchor packer with a mandrel 24 having tubular bore 26 and this is considered a bridge plug (Col 2, lines 35-51). This is considered evidence that element 34 can be considered to be a bridge plug)
a deflector 22 configured to redirect alloy beads delivered through said wellbore tubular body radially outwards towards openings in a wall of the tubular body located up-hole of the annular seal, and further configured to accumulate the alloy beads on an up- hole face of the annual seal, wherein the deflector is arranged up-hole of the bridge plug 34.(Figure 3, Note whipstock 22 is interpreted as capable of performing the claimed functionality of “redirect alloy beads delivered through said wellbore tubular body radially outwards towards openings in a wall of the tubular body located up-hole of the annular seal, and further configured to accumulate the alloy beads on an up- hole face of the annual seal,” The deflector of Buyaert meets the limitations and could be used in a method for performing “forming an alloy plug on an existing annular seal that encircles an oil/gas wellbore tubular body” ).
Regarding claim 31: Buyaert discloses 31. (Original) The bridge plug assembly of claim 30, further comprising a delivery support connection point 60, by which the assembly is connectable to delivery means via a delivery support such that said assembly can be delivered to and retrieved from a downhole target region of a wellbore tubular body.([0036],[0039], and [0041] )
Regarding claim 32: Buyaert discloses 32. (Original) The bridge plug assembly of claim 31, further comprising a delivery support 55 connected to the delivery support connection point and wherein the deflector is located on the delivery support; wherein preferably the delivery support is selected from: coiled tubing, pipe, slick line and wireline.(“Wellbore string” 55 is interpreted as pipe)
Regarding claim 33: Buyaert discloses 33. (Original) The bridge plug assembly of claim 30, 31 or 32, wherein the deflector comprises an up-hole facing surface that comprises at least one sloped region.(Figure 3)
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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020070018 A1 to Buyaert as evidenced by US 4397355 A to McLamore, in view of US 5462120 A to Gondouin.
Regarding claim 34: Buyaert discloses the claimed invention except wherein the up-hole facing surface of the deflector is cone shaped and the apex of the cone is located at the central axis of the deflector.
Gondouin teaches a twin whipstock 3 with a cone shape with the apex of the cone located at the central axis of the deflector. (Figures 1 and 8)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Buyaert and use a whipstock in the style of Gondouin, in view of Gondouin, so as to allow the drilling of a multiple windows in different directions from the same location (Case 1, Col 4, line 35- Col 5, line 50)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-40 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
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 STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights