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
Applicants amendments dated 3/10/25 have been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karakaya (US 11913300 B1), in view of Pounds (US 11041357 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Karakaya teaches a packer assembly for a production well comprising:
one or more packer elements (Fig 1A, packer 112) configured to engage and seal an inner surface of a well casing (Fig 1A, engaged with casing as seen);
a production tube running through the one or more packer elements (Fig 1A, tubing 104) and providing a fluid path to the surface (Fig 1A, path defined by line 120).
While Karakaya teaches a bypass line (Fig 1A, line 120), Karakaya is silent on the particulars of that in, particularly in relations to the packer.
Pounds teaches a chemical inlet port (Fig 5, inlet at 514) positioned on an outer surface of the production tube (Fig 5, outer surface of production tube 520, as seen) above the one or more packer elements (Fig 5, above packer 512);
a chemical outlet port (Fig 5, outlet at approximately 532) positioned on the outer surface of the production tube (Fig 5, outer surface of production tube 520, as seen) below the one or more packer elements Fig 5, above packer 512); and
a chemical flow path running through the one or more packer elements from the chemical inlet port to the chemical outlet port (Fig 5, flowpath defined by 526 to the inlet/outlet).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Karakaya by having the structure of the bypass line extending through the packer as disclosed by Pounds because Karakaya is largely schematically depicted. In seeking to implement that invention, one would need the implementing and structural details such as those provided by Pounds which are known to yield predictable results of permitting a line to bypass a packing element in a downhole environment.
Regarding claim 2, Karakaya as modified teaches wherein the chemical inlet port is connected to a chemical line bringing a chemical from a surface supply (Fig 2 of Karakaya, chemical supplied by supply 202 with line 120) by an input connector (Fig 5 of pounds, inlet at 514 with connector above).
Regarding claim 7, Karakaya as modified teaches wherein the bypass line runs through an exterior of the production tube (Fig 5 of Pound, flowpath/bypass defined by 526 is outside tube 520).
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karakaya (US 11913300 B1), in view of Pounds (US 11041357 B2) , in view of Raglin (US 20200284134 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Karakaya is silent on wherein the packer assembly comprises a cup packer.
Raglin teaches wherein the packer assembly comprises a cup packer (Fig 3, packer seals around a bypass line 230 are cups 210).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Karakaya by having the cup packer as disclosed by Raglin because Karakaya only discloses a generic packer. One would look to the packer of Raglin because he provides the structurally necessary implementing details for a wellbore packer that would yield predictable results i.e. sealing an annulus in a wellbore environment.
Regarding claim 6, Karakaya is silent on wherein the bypass line runs through an interior of the production tube.
Raglin teaches wherein the bypass line runs through an interior of the production tube (Fig 3, bypass line 230 runs through production tubing at approximately 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Karakaya by having the relative placement of a bypass line relative to a production tubular as disclosed by Raglin because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the arrangement of the bypass in Karakaya) for another (the arrangement of the bypass of Raglin) to obtain predictable results (permitting a bypass line across a packer in a downhole environment).
Regarding claim 8, Karakaya is silent on wherein the bypass line is integral to a wall of the production tube.
Raglin teaches wherein the bypass line is integral to a wall of the production tube (Fig 3, bypass line 230 would be integral to tubular wall at e.g. 227 in that it is necessary to make it whole/operable. Absent the bypass line at that point, the tubular would leak).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Karakaya by having the relative placement of a bypass line relative to a production tubular as disclosed by Raglin because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the arrangement of the bypass in Karakaya) for another (the arrangement of the bypass of Raglin) to obtain predictable results (permitting a bypass line across a packer in a downhole environment).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karakaya (US 11913300 B1), in view of Pounds (US 11041357 B2), in view of Holmes (US 3357490 A).
Regarding claim 5, Karakaya is silent on wherein the chemical comprises one or more of a defoamer, a demulsifier, a diesel, and a coolant.
Holmes teaches the chemical comprises o one or more of a defoamer, a demulsifier, a diesel, and a coolant (Column 1, lines 54-60, coolant such as water is introduced).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Karakaya by having the chemical comprise a coolant as disclosed by Holmes “in order to overcome the deleterious effects of such high temperature conditions” (Column 1, lines 54-60 of Holmes).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 4605063 A) , in view of Raglin (US 20200284134 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ross teaches a packer assembly for a production well comprising:
one or more radially extending member configured to engage an inner surface of a well casing (Fig 4A, radially extending member 14 engaged with casing C);
a production tube running through the one or more radially extending member and providing a fluid path to the surface (Fig 4A, tubing T with flow path in the inner bore as seen);
a bypass line (Fig 4A, line 4) comprising:
a chemical inlet port positioned on an outer surface of the production tube above the one or more radially extending member (Fig 4A, port defined as portion of 4 from 4a to the top of 14);
a chemical outlet port positioned on the outer surface of the production tube between the one or more radially extending member and a lower end of the production tube (Fig 4A, port defined as portion of 4 from 4b to the bottom of 14), wherein the chemical outlet port includes an outlet connector (Fig 4A, connector 4b); and
a chemical flow path running through the one or more radially extending member from the chemical inlet port to the chemical outlet port (Fig 4A, pathway defined by 4 within 14), wherein the bypass line is configured to flow a chemical through the chemical flow path from the chemical inlet port to the chemical outlet port (Fig 4A, pathway/flow path seen; Abstract, use for injection/chemicals); and
a downhole chemical line configured to connect to the outlet connector of the chemical outlet port and that extends past the lower end of the production tube (Fig 4A-4B, downhole chemical line 40; see Fig 4B, extends past lower end of tube T/S).
While Pounds teaches “the apparatus described herein could be employed with a packer employing a radially expandable annular packing element” (Column 5, lines 26-29), Pounds is silent on the radially extending member being a packer element that seals and a bypass line running through an interior of the production tube.
Raglin teaches the radially extending member being a packer element that seals (Fig 3, packing seals 210) and a bypass line running through an interior of the production tube (Fig 3, bypass line 230 runs through production tubing at approximately 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ross by having the relative placement of a bypass line relative to a production tubular and having the radially extending member include a packer as disclosed by Raglin because first, it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the arrangement of the bypass in Ross) for another (the arrangement of the bypass of Raglin) to obtain predictable results (permitting a bypass line across a radially extending member in a downhole environment). Second, regarding the inclusion of the packer, it is already envisioned by Ross, as discussed above, and the packer of Raglin would prevent the undesired flow of fluids through the annulus instead of within the production tubing.
Regarding claim 18, Ross teaches a packer assembly for a production well comprising:
one or more radially extending member configured to engage an inner surface of a well casing (Fig 4A, radially extending member 14 engaged with casing C);
a production tube running through the one or more radially extending member and providing a fluid path to the surface (Fig 4A, tubing T with flow path in the inner bore as seen);
a bypass line (Fig 4A, line 4) comprising:
a chemical inlet port positioned on an outer surface of the production tube above the one or more radially extending member (Fig 4A, port defined as portion of 4 from 4a to the top of 14);
a chemical outlet port positioned on the outer surface of the production tube between the one or more radially extending member and an end of the production tube (Fig 4A, port defined as portion of 4 from 4b to the bottom of 14); and
a chemical flow path running through the one or more packer elements from the chemical inlet port to the chemical outlet port (Fig 4A, pathway defined by 4 within 14); and
a downhole chemical line configured to connect to the chemical outlet port and extending below the end of the production tube (Fig 4A-4B, downhole chemical line 40; see Fig 4B, extends past lower end of tube T/S).
While Pounds teaches “the apparatus described herein could be employed with a packer employing a radially expandable annular packing element” (Column 5, lines 26-29), Pounds is silent on the radially extending member being a packer element that seals and a bypass line running through an interior of the production tube.
Raglin teaches the radially extending member being a packer element that seals (Fig 3, packing seals 210).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Ross by having the radially extending member include a packer as disclosed by Raglin because regarding the inclusion of the packer, it is already envisioned by Ross, as discussed above, and the packer of Raglin would prevent the undesired flow of fluids through the annulus instead of within the production tubing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676