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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 18-19, 21-24, 31-34, 38-39, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Putch (4773477).
Putch discloses a hanger system, a well system, and method, comprising:
Re claims 1, 21, and 41 (method claim 41 is pertinent because when the system is put in operation, it will result in the steps as called for in the method claim):
a wellbore (i.e., abstract:1-2, ‘well’), extending through one or more subterranean formations; and
an expandable liner hanger 10 (i.e., fig. 1) assembly positioned within the wellbore, the expandable liner hanger assembly including:
a radially expandable tubular 10 (i.e., fig. 4A) defining an interior passageway and an exterior surface; and
an anchoring ridge extending radially outward from the radially expandable tubular, the anchoring ridge having an entry angle A (i.e., attached figure below), an exit angle C and a bevel angle B greater than zero degrees (three bevel angles between the entry angle and the exit angle and one of them indicated by B is greater than zero).
PNG
media_image1.png
869
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 2, 22, the bevel angle B is at least 1 degree (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 3, 23, the bevel angle B is greater than 5 degrees (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 4, 24, the bevel angle B is greater than 10 degrees (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 5, 25, the bevel angle B is greater than 25 degrees (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 6, 26, the bevel angle B ranges from 10 degrees to 30 degrees (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 7, 27, the bevel angle B) ranges from 12 degrees to 17 degrees (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 8, 28, a bevel radial exterior point of the anchoring ridge is a thin flat surface having a length less than 20 mm (i.e., fig. 4A).
Re claims 9, 29, a bevel radial exterior point of the anchoring ridge is a thin flat surface having a length less than 2 mm (i.e., fig. 4A).
Re claims 11, 31, the radially expandable tubular 10 has an uphole end and a downhole end, and further wherein a bevel radially exterior point of the anchoring ridge is located more proximate the uphole end than a bevel radially interior point of the anchoring ridge (i.e., attached figure/fig. 4A).
Re claims 12, 32, the radially expandable tubular has an uphole end and a downhole end, and further wherein a bevel radially interior point of the anchoring ridge is located more proximate the uphole end than a bevel radially exterior point of the anchoring ridge (i.e., attached figure/fig. 4A - figure depicts multiple anchoring ridges and a bevel radially interior point of the upper ridge located more proximate the uphole end than a bevel radially exterior point of the center and lower ridge).
Re claims 13, 33, the anchoring ridge is a first anchoring ridge, and further including a second anchoring ridge (center ridge) extending radially outward from the radially expandable tubular (i.e., attached figure/fig. 4A).
Re claims 14, 34, the second anchoring ridge has an entry angle an exit angle and a bevel angle greater than zero degrees (i.e., attached figure).
Re claims 18, 38, the second anchoring ridge is a non-beveled anchoring ridge having a bevel angle of zero degrees (i.e., attached figure depicts two of three bevel angles except B is zero degrees).
Re claims 19, 39, a sealing member 42 positioned radially outside of the radially expandable tubular (i.e., fig. 2b, ring 42 seals pins 44).
Re claim 42, radially expanding the radially expandable tubular 10 to engage the anchoring ridge with the wellbore (i.e., abtract:1-2, engage - https://www.bing.com/search?q=engage+definition&cvid=57fdfc795db546e49037ab4395ea5785&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEAyCAgJEOkHGPxV0gEINTYzOWowajGoAgCwAgA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531)
Re claim 43, including wellbore casing (i.e., fig.1. col. 3:12-15) located radially inside of the wellbore, the radially expanding the radially expandable tubular engaging (see definition recited in claim 42) the anchoring ridge with the wellbore casing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 10, 15-17, 20, 30, 35-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putch.
Re claims 10, 30, Putch discloses a bevel radial exterior point of the anchoring ridge is a thin flat surface having a length less than 20 mm and less than 2 mm, but is silent on a bevel radial exterior point of the anchoring ridge is a thin flat surface having a length less than 1 mm. However, 1 mm is less than 20 mm and 2 mm. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the system of Putch with a thin flat face length of a bevel radial exterior point of the anchoring ridge less than 1 mm to minimize a production cost of the ridge, since it has been held that the general conditions of acclaim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claims 15, 35, Putch discloses the radially expandable tubular has an uphole end and a downhole end, and further wherein a first bevel radially exterior point of the first anchoring ridge is located more proximate the uphole end than a first bevel radially interior point of the first anchoring ridge (i.e., attached figure/fig. 4A), but is silent on a second bevel radially interior point of the second anchoring ridge is located more proximate the uphole end than a second bevel radially exterior point of the second anchoring ridge. However, it appears that a reversal of the second anchoring ridge meets a second bevel radially interior point of the second anchoring ridge located more proximate the uphole end than a second bevel radially exterior point of the second anchoring ridge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the system of Putch with a reversal of the second anchoring ridge for a predictable performance of the ridge, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Putch further discloses,
Re claims 16, 36, a third anchoring ridge positioned between the first and second anchoring ridges (i.e., the center ridge portioned between upper and lower ridges)
Re claims 17, 37, the third anchoring ridge is a non-beveled anchoring ridge having a bevel angle of zero degrees attached figure depicts two of three bevel angles except B is zero degrees).
Re claims 20, 40, Putch discloses the sealing member 42 seals pin 44 , but is silent on is positioned between the first and second anchoring ridges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the system of Putch to locate the pin and sealing member between the first and second anchoring ridges for predictable performance of the system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hazelip (11248450) teaches liner hanger with hardened anchoring ridges. Zong et al. (20210115764) teaches an expandable liner hanger positioned within a casing string, having one or more anchoring ridges. Jorge et al. (20200149375) teaches expandable liner hanger includes an anchoring element having multiple circumferential ridges
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights