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 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues the modification of Harkins et al. (U.S. 8,800,646B2) with the shoulder of Smith (U.S. 6,484,382 B1).
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that the structurally separate shoulder in Smith will Not “enables the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead.” Applicant specifically state that annular recess 163 of Harkins does not support a suspended string of casing or tubing. Applicant explains that in Harkins, components are supported by “hanger 26,” not by annular recess 163 within tubing spool 24. Applicant further states that it would have been pointless to include a structurally separate shoulder to support the weight of a string of tubing or casing given that the function of supporting the tubing and casing strings is performed by the “hanger 26”.
Examiner respectfully disagree. The annular recess 163 of Harkins is not pointless. Col. 5, lines 42-45 states that “the tubing spool 24 may include an annular recess 163 configured to solely…retain the sleeve 150”. Note that sleeve 150 is suspending vertically, implying that at least some of its weight is supported at recess 163. This clearly confirms that annular recess 162 supports tubular elements, and in this case, sleeve 150. Therefore, annular recess 163 is not pointless, but a useful features for supporting tubular structures lowered in tubing spool 24. While examiner agrees that hanger 26 is used for supporting other tubular structures, the specification and drawings of Harkins clearly shows that annular recess 162 is necessary for supporting strings of casing or tubing in the wellhead assembly.
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that the modification of Harkins would have been counterproductive. Specifically, applicant argues that modifying Harkins to include a structurally separate shoulder, rather than integral annular recess 163, would require an addition step, such as placing the “installable shoulder” within the throughbore of tubing spool 24 before the sleeve could be inserted. “Additionally, the shoulder would be an additional part that would have to be manufactured, shipped, and kept in inventory”. Applicant concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to make a modification that would complicate the installation and manufacturing process, particularly given that there would be no benefit associated with doing so”.
Examiner respectfully disagree. As stated above, there is a great benefit of using the installable shoulder of Smith, i.e., this type of shoulder “enables the wellhead to be able to support enormous weight of suspended string of casing or tubing in the wellhead”, such as sleeves 150. So, the additional steps of placing the installable shoulder within the bore of tubing spool 24 for the purpose of supporting enormous weight of suspended strings, would be a necessary step, especially since the claim does not prevent or require a specific number of steps.
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 14-20 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);
a shoulder (“annular recess 163”; see fig. 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 43-45) in a tubing head (24) having an upper end and 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);
coupling the lower end of the tubing head (24) to the wellhead housing (25; see fig. 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 30-32); 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 (102) passes through an inner diameter of the shoulder (163; see fig. 5, step 218, and refer to col. 6, lines 60-65).
Harkins et al. further teach that “annular recess 163” is configured to solely retain sleeve 150 (col. 5, lines 43-45).
However, Harkins et al. fail to teach introducing a shoulder into the tubing head. in other words, the shoulder of Harkins et al. is not introduced in the tubing head as the shoulder is the annular recess that is “integral” to the tubing head.
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 (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) comprising a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) in the annular groove (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 introduce a shoulder, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of supporting the sleeve, 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 15, the combination of Harkins et al. and Smith teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 14 above; Harkins et al. further disclose introducing a wellhead component (150, fig. 3) through the bore (34) of the tubing head (24; see figs. 3 and 5); and
supporting the wellhead component (150) relative to the tubing head (24) via the shoulder (as modified by Smith, see the rejection of claim 14 above).
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 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 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 (12, fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 30-32) comprising:
a wellhead housing (25; see figs. 1-3);
a tubing head (24) coupled to the wellhead housing (25; see fig. 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 30-32), the tubing head (24) comprising:
a tubing head body (see figs. 1 and 3: body of “tubing spool 24”) 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; see figs. 1-3) and extending longitudinally between a first end and a second end (as shown in figs. 1 and 3); and
a shoulder (“annular recess 163”; see fig. 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 43-45) disposed within the bore as shown in fig. 3); and
a wellhead component (150, fig. 3) disposed within the bore (34) of the tubing head (24) and supported by the shoulder (163; col. 5, lines 43-45: “annular recess 163” is configured to solely retain sleeve 150); 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 (“tubing spool bore 34”), the shoulder (163), and the casing isolation plug (102) are configured such that the casing isolation plug (102) may be removed from the wellhead housing (25) by passing from the first end to the second end of the tubing head (see fig. 5, step 218, and refer to col. 6, lines 60-65).
Harkins et al. further teach that “annular recess 163” is configured to solely retain sleeve 150 (col. 5, lines 43-45).
However, Harkins et al. fail to teach introducing a shoulder into the tubing head. in other words, the shoulder of Harkins et al. is not introduced in the tubing head as the shoulder is the annular recess that is “integral” to the tubing head.
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 (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) comprising a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40) in the annular groove (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 introduce a shoulder, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of supporting the sleeve, 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 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 needs to be 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 shoulder (22) comprises a plurality of shoulder segments (54, 56, 58, see fig. 2 and refer to col. 6, lines 5-40).
Conclusion
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