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 on 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 14, 18, 21, and 25, applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify Harkins et al. (U.S. 8,800,646B2) to include the load shoulder of Smith (U.S. 6,484,382 B1) configured for supporting a tubing hanger and production tubing or a tie back hanger and frac casing. Applicant states that the only purpose of annular recess 163 is to retain sleeve 150. Sleeve 150 extend upward from the tubing head, rather than into the wellbore.
Examiner respectfully disagree. The rejection does not rely solely on Harkins’ annular recess 163 itself being a load shoulder. Rather, the rejection relies on the combination of Harkins and Smith, wherein Harkins provides the wellhead/tubing spool structure having an annular recess and Smith provides the known load shoulder arrangement configured to support a tubing hanger and production tubing. Harkins and Smith are directed to the same general field of wellhead equipment. Harkins expressly discloses a wellhead structure architecture having an internal circumferential recess in which additional wellhead components may be positioned (col. 4, lines 30-47). Smith expressly teaches load shoulders for supporting tubing and tubing hangers may be installed in an circumferential groove formed in a wellhead. The annular shoulder is received within the circumferential groove and adapted to supports a tubing hanger, which intern supports a tubing. Thus, Smith provides a known wellhead technique for supporting a tubing hanger and tubing using an annular load shoulder positioned in a circumferential groove in a wellhead. Accordingly, on of ordinary skill in the art, when faced with the well-known requirement of providing support for a tubing hanger and production tubing in a wellhead such as that of Harkins, would have had reasons to employ Smith’s known load-shoulder arrangement in the Harkins wellhead structure, including at the region of the annular recess. The resulting modification would have amounted to the application of a known load-supporting technique to a known wellhead structure is its purpose of supporting tubing hanger and tubing, with the expected result of transferring tubing load through the load shoulder of the wellhead.
Applicant further argues that there would be no reason to modify annular recess to support a tubing hanger.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Smith expressly identified the purpose of the load shoulder as supporting a tubing hanger and production tubing. Thus, incorporating the load shoulder of Smith into the wellhead of Harkins would provide the claimed load-supporting function. The modification represents the application of a known technique to a known device for the same general purpose, yielding a predictable result.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 14, 16-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harkins et al. (U.S. 8,800,646B2), in view of Smith (U.S. 6,484,382 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Harkins et al. disclose a method to isolate a wellbore (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 50-col. 5, line 5), the method comprising:
introducing a casing isolation plug (102, figs. 2-3, 5, and refer to col. 5, lines 6-24) into the wellbore through a wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
coupling to the wellhead housing (25; see fig. 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 30-32) a tubing head (24) having an upper end, a lower end (upper and lower end of “tubing spool 24”; see figs. 1 and 3), and a throughbore (“tubing spool bore 34”; see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 18) from the upper end to the lower end (as shown in figs. 1 and 3);
retrieving the casing isolation plug (102) from the wellhead housing (25) and from the lower end to the upper end of the throughbore of the tubing head (24), such that the casing isolation plug (102) passes through an inner diameter of an annular recess (163; see fig. 5, step 218, and refer to col. 6, lines 60-65).
Harkins et al. further teach that the “annular recess 163” is configured to retain a sleeve 150 (col. 5, lines 43-45) inserted into the tubing head (24), wherein the sleeve may be retain in the tubing head (24) by hangers (refer to col. 5, lines 25-45).
However, Harkins et al. fail to teach installing in the throughbore of the tubing head a load shoulder configured to support a tubing hanger and string of production tubing.
Examiner note that the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.
Smith, similarly to Harkins et al., teaches a tubing head (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 1, lines 19-23: “this invention is concerned with a method for providing an internal circumferential shoulder in a cylindrical passage way and is exemplified by an installable load shoulder for a tubing or casing head, that is also frequently called a wellhead”) comprising:
a tubing head body (10, fig. 1) defining a bore (12, 14) and an annular groove/ annular recess (16, fig. 1 and col. 5, line 1); and
introducing a shoulder (22, figs. 2-4, note that it is represented by element 18 in fig. 1. Also refer to col. 6, line 5) configured to support a tubing hanger and string of production tubing (intended use) and comprising a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) in the annular groove/ annular recess (16) to support tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28). This type of shoulder enables the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove area of Harkins et al. to include the installation of a shoulder, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of supporting the sleeve and/or other sleeves such as tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28) and enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 14 above; Smith further teaches wherein the tubing head (10) is formed from a first material (col. 5, lines 6-10: “steel”) and the load shoulder (22) is formed from a second material that is different than the first material (refer to col. 5, lines 13-29: “high strength material, such as high strength metal alloy” for supporting enormous weight of suspended string. Also note the different cross-hatching in figs. 4 and 6-7 and the discussion in col. 5, lines 13-29 suggesting that the load should is made from a high strength alloy to withstand the enormous weight requirement in deep wells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubing head of Harkins et al. such that the tubing head body is formed from a first material and the installable shoulder is formed from a second material that is different than the first material., as taught by Smith, for the purpose of enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead and deep well applications (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 14 above; Smith further teaches wherein introducing the load shoulder into the tubing head comprises introducing a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) into the tubing head to collectively form an annular ring within the tubing head (see figs. 2-7).
Regarding claim 18, Harkins et al. disclose a wellhead system (10, fig. 1) comprising:
a wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
a tubing head (24) coupled to the wellhead housing (25), the tubing head (24) comprising:
a tubing head body defining a throughbore (“tubing spool bore 34”; see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 18) in fluid communication with the wellhead housing (25) and extending longitudinally between a first end and a second end (as shown in figs. 1 and 3); and
an annular recess (163) disposed within the throughbore of the tubing head body (as shown in fig. 3); and
a casing isolation plug (102, figs. 2-3, 5, and refer to col. 5, lines 6-24) disposed within the wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
wherein the tubing head throughbore, the installable load shoulder, and the casing isolation plug are configured such that the casing isolation plug (102) may be removed from the wellhead housing by passing from the first end to the second end of the tubing head (163; see fig. 5, step 218, and refer to col. 6, lines 60-65).
Harkins et al. further teach that the “annular recess 163” is configured to retain a sleeve 150 (col. 5, lines 43-45) inserted into the tubing head (24), wherein the sleeve may be retain in the tubing head (24) by hangers (refer to col. 5, lines 25-45).
However, Harkins et al. fail to teach an installable load shoulder disposed within the throughbore of the tubing head body and configured to support a tie back hanger and string of frac casing.
Examiner note that the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.
Smith, similarly to Harkins et al., teaches a tubing head (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 1, lines 19-23: “this invention is concerned with a method for providing an internal circumferential shoulder in a cylindrical passage way and is exemplified by an installable load shoulder for a tubing or casing head, that is also frequently called a wellhead”) comprising:
a tubing head body (10, fig. 1) defining a bore (12, 14) and an annular groove/ annular recess (16, fig. 1 and col. 5, line 1); and
introducing a shoulder (22, figs. 2-4, note that it is represented by element 18 in fig. 1. Also refer to col. 6, line 5) configured to support a tie back hanger and string of frac casing (intended use) and comprising a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) in the annular groove/ annular recess (16) to support tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28). This type of shoulder enables the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove area of Harkins et al. to include the installation of a shoulder, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of supporting the sleeve and/or other sleeves such as tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28) and enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; Smith further teaches wherein the tubing head body (10) is formed from a first material (col. 5, lines 6-10: “steel”) and the installable load shoulder (22) is formed from a second material that is different than the first material (refer to col. 5, lines 13-29: “high strength material, such as high strength metal alloy” for supporting enormous weight of suspended string. Also note the different cross-hatching in figs. 4 and 6-7 and the discussion in col. 5, lines 13-29 suggesting that the load should is made from a high strength alloy to withstand the enormous weight requirement in deep wells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubing head of Harkins et al. such that the tubing head body is formed from a first material and the installable shoulder is formed from a second material that is different than the first material., as taught by Smith, for the purpose of enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead and deep well applications (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; Smith further teaches wherein the installable load shoulder (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) comprises a plurality of shoulder segments (see figs. 2-7).
Regarding claim 21, Harkins et al. disclose a method to isolate a wellbore (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 50-col. 5, line 5), the method comprising:
introducing a casing isolation plug (102, figs. 2-3, 5, and refer to col. 5, lines 6-24) into the wellbore through a wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
coupling to the wellhead housing (25; see fig. 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 30-32) a tubing head (24) having an upper end, a lower end (upper and lower end of “tubing spool 24”; see figs. 1 and 3), and a throughbore (“tubing spool bore 34”; see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 18) from the upper end to the lower end (as shown in figs. 1 and 3); and
retrieving the casing isolation plug (102) from the wellhead housing (25) and from the lower end to the upper end of the throughbore of the tubing head (24), such that the casing isolation plug passes through an inner diameter of an annular recess (163; see fig. 5, step 218, and refer to col. 6, lines 60-65).
Harkins et al. further teach that the “annular recess 163” is configured to retain a sleeve 150 (col. 5, lines 43-45) inserted into the tubing head (24), wherein the sleeve may be retain in the tubing head (24) by hangers (refer to col. 5, lines 25-45).
However, Harkins et al. fail to teach installing in the throughbore of the tubing head a load shoulder configured to support a tie back hanger and string of frac casing.
Examiner note that the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.
Smith, similarly to Harkins et al., teaches a tubing head (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 1, lines 19-23: “this invention is concerned with a method for providing an internal circumferential shoulder in a cylindrical passage way and is exemplified by an installable load shoulder for a tubing or casing head, that is also frequently called a wellhead”) comprising:
a tubing head body (10, fig. 1) defining a bore (12, 14) and an annular groove/ annular recess (16, fig. 1 and col. 5, line 1); and
introducing a shoulder (22, figs. 2-4, note that it is represented by element 18 in fig. 1. Also refer to col. 6, line 5) configured to support a tie back hanger and string of frac casing (intended use) and comprising a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) in the annular groove/ annular recess (16) to support tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28). This type of shoulder enables the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove area of Harkins et al. to include the installation of a shoulder, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of supporting the sleeve and/or other sleeves such as tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28) and enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 14 above; Smith further teaches wherein the tubing head (10) is formed from a first material (col. 5, lines 6-7: “steel”) and the load shoulder (22) is formed from a second material that is different than the first material (col. 5, lines 12-29: “high strength material, such as high strength metal alloy” . Also the different cross-hatching in figs. 4 and 6-7 and the discussion in col. 5, lines 12-29 suggesting that the load shoulder needs to be made from a high strength alloy to withstand the enormous weight requirement in deep wells).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 14 above; Smith further teaches wherein introducing the load shoulder into the tubing head comprises introducing a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6 lines 5-40) into the tubing head (10) to collectively form an annular ring within the tubing head (22, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40).
Regarding claim 25, Harkins et al. disclose a wellhead system (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 50-col. 5, line 5)comprising:
a wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
a tubing head (24) coupled to the wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1 and 3), the tubing head (24) comprising:
a tubing head body defining a throughbore (“tubing spool bore 34”; see fig. 1 and refer to col. 4, line 18) in fluid communication with the wellhead housing (25) and extending longitudinally between a first end and a second end (as shown in figs. 1 and 3); and
an annular recess (163) disposed within the throughbore of the tubing head body (as shown in fig. 3);
a casing isolation plug (102, figs. 2-3, 5, and refer to col. 5, lines 6-24) disposed within the wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
wherein the tubing head throughbore, the annular recess, and the casing isolation plug are configured such that the casing isolation plug (102) may be removed from the wellhead housing by passing from the first end to the second end of the tubing head (163; see fig. 5, step 218, and refer to col. 6, lines 60-65).
Harkins et al. further teach that the “annular recess 163” is configured to retain a sleeve 150 (col. 5, lines 43-45) inserted into the tubing head (24), wherein the sleeve may be retain in the tubing head (24) by hangers (refer to col. 5, lines 25-45).
However, Harkins et al. fail to teach an installable load shoulder disposed within the throughbore of the tubing head body and configured to support a tie back hanger and string of frac casing.
Examiner note that the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.
Smith, similarly to Harkins et al., teaches a tubing head (see fig. 1 and refer to col. 1, lines 19-23: “this invention is concerned with a method for providing an internal circumferential shoulder in a cylindrical passage way and is exemplified by an installable load shoulder for a tubing or casing head, that is also frequently called a wellhead”) comprising:
a tubing head body (10, fig. 1) defining a bore (12, 14) and an annular groove/ annular recess (16, fig. 1 and col. 5, line 1); and
introducing a shoulder (22, figs. 2-4, note that it is represented by element 18 in fig. 1. Also refer to col. 6, line 5) configured to support a tie back hanger and string of frac casing (intended use) and comprising a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) in the annular groove/ annular recess (16) to support tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28). This type of shoulder enables the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular groove area of Harkins et al. to include the installation of a shoulder, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of supporting the sleeve and/or other sleeves such as tuning hangers and casing hangers (refer to col. 1, lines 25-28) and enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; Smith further teaches wherein the tubing head body (10) is formed from a first material (col. 5, lines 6-10: “steel”) and the installable load shoulder (22) is formed from a second material that is different than the first material (refer to col. 5, lines 13-29: “high strength material, such as high strength metal alloy” for supporting enormous weight of suspended string. Also note the different cross-hatching in figs. 4 and 6-7 and the discussion in col. 5, lines 13-29 suggesting that the load should is made from a high strength alloy to withstand the enormous weight requirement in deep wells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubing head of Harkins et al. such that the tubing head body is formed from a first material and the installable shoulder is formed from a second material that is different than the first material., as taught by Smith, for the purpose of enabling the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead and deep well applications (refer to col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 18 above; Smith further teaches wherein the installable load shoulder comprises a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dubn et al. (U.S 7,322,407B2) and Vanderford (U.S. 2005/0252653A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights