DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 6/26/2026 has been entered.
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 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejections under 112 should be withdrawn since the claims have been amended and a modified drawing has been submitted. The examiner notes that no modified drawing was received with the response filed 6/26/2026. Further, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendment clarifies the claim. While the claim now recites that the extrusion limiter body has a width and the weakened region is proximate a midpoint “of the width (w)”, it remains indefinite as it is not clear what dimension is considered the “midpoint” nor “width”.
Applicant also argues that with the claims as amended, the rejections under Coon and/or Kellner should be withdrawn as they fail to teach or suggest the claimed extrusion limiter body having a width and a weakened region substantially proximate a midpoint of the width, as now claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees since it remains unclear what dimension the “width” would be considered as claimed as the claims nor specification clearly describe this feature. Further, although the specification does discuss the midpoint (paragraph 25 specification as filed) and that the weakened region is within some percentage of midpoint, it is not clear that “midpoint” has any clear definition (as being any particular point or location) and it also not clear how the percentage as discussed is calculated (i.e. percentage of the radius, diameter, width, thickness etc). Therefore, as may be interpreted by one of ordinary skill, the weakened regions as taught by Kellner and applied to Coon et al. may be considered proximate a midpoint of the width as claimed. While the amendment filed 1/16/2026 did include a new illustration of the “midpoint” (as being 243), this figure is not considered new matter insofar as it is an example illustration of a midpoint, which does not appear to impart any particular limitations to the definition of the “midpoint”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 18-19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. These claims all recite that a “weakened region” is “substantially proximate” (as in claims 1, 11, and 21), or also “ ideally proximate” (as in claims 3 and 13) to a midpoint of the width of the cylindrical extrusion limiter body. The specification discloses that these phrases “mean” that the weakened region is located within some percentage of a midpoint (i.e. paragraph 25 specification as filed). However, the specification does not clearly define the “midpoint”, nor what dimension is considered “width”, nor does it clearly show how one of ordinary skill would calculate being “within” some percentage “of a midpoint” as claimed. Therefore, these claims are indefinite as they recite calculations which are not clearly defined to one of ordinary skill in the art. The remaining claims are indefinite as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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, 3, 8-9, 11, 13, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coon et al. (US 2019/0226298) in view of Kellner (US 2019/0120011).
In regard to claim 1, Coon et al. discloses a sealing assembly, comprising: a mandrel (102, or 101 as in paragraph 17); a sealing element (108) positioned about the mandrel (as in claim 1); a cylindrical extrusion limiter (200 as in fig 4, paragraphs 21-22) positioned radially about a centerpoint of the sealing element (as in fig 4); a first collar sleeve (124) coupled proximate a first end of the sealing element; and a second collar sleeve (116) coupled proximate a second end of the sealing element, wherein the first and second collar sleeves are configured to axially translate relative to one another along the mandrel to move the sealing element between a radially retracted state a radially expanded state (fig 1 vs fig 5); and further wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is configured to break to deploy from an undeployed state to a deployed state as the sealing element moves from the radially retracted state to the radially expanded state (as in fig 3 or 5, paragraph 22); wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (202) having a width (any dimension may be considered as the width as claimed, see 112 rejection above). Coon et al. do not disclose the extrusion limiter body having a weakened region substantially proximate a midpoint of the width (as best understood, see 112 rejection above) thereof.
Kellner discloses an extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (700) having a weakened region (704, 706) substantially proximate a midpoint of the width thereof (where “midpoint of the width” may be defined to be any location, see 112 above, i.e. midpoint may be that of the circumference, diameter, radius, thickness etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the extrusion limiter of Coon et al. with the weakened region, as taught by Kellner, in order to provide adjustment of breaking of the limiter (paragraph 40 of Kellner) and since combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 3, Kellner discloses wherein the weakened region (704,706) is located ideally proximate a midpoint of the width (as may be arbitrarily defined, see 112 above where midpoint is undefined).
In regard to claim 8, Coon et al. disclose wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is located radially about an entirety of the sealing element (as in fig 4).
In regard to claim 9, Coon et al. disclose wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is located radially about at least 60 percent of the sealing element (as in fig 4).
In regard to claim 11, Coon et al. disclose a well system, comprising: a wellbore located in a subterranean formation (as in paragraph 2); a sealing assembly positioned in the wellbore, the sealing assembly including: a mandrel (102, or 101 as in paragraph 17); a sealing element (108) positioned about the mandrel (as in claim 1); a cylindrical extrusion limiter (200 as in fig 4, paragraphs 21-22) positioned radially about a centerpoint of the sealing element (as in fig 4); a first collar sleeve (124) coupled proximate a first end of the sealing element; and a second collar sleeve (116) coupled proximate a second end of the sealing element, wherein the first and second collar sleeves are configured to axially translate relative to one another along the mandrel to move the sealing element between a radially retracted state a radially expanded state (fig 1 vs fig 5); and further wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is configured to break to deploy from an undeployed state to a deployed state as the sealing element moves from the radially retracted state to the radially expanded state (as in fig 3 or 5, paragraph 22), wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (202) having a width (any dimension may be considered width, see 112 rejection above). Coon et al. do not disclose the extrusion limiter body having a weakened region substantially proximate a midpoint of the width thereof.
Kellner discloses an extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (700) having a weakened region (704, 706) substantially proximate a midpoint of the width (where “midpoint of the width” may be defined to be any location, see 112 above, i.e. midpoint may be that of the circumference, diameter, radius, thickness etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the extrusion limiter of Coon et al. with the weakened region, as taught by Kellner, in order to provide adjustment of breaking of the limiter (paragraph 40 of Kellner) and since combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 13, Kellner discloses wherein the weakened region (704,706) is located ideally proximate a midpoint of the width (as may be arbitrarily defined, see 112 above where midpoint is undefined).
In regard to claim 18, Coon et al. disclose wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is located radially about an entirety of the sealing element (as in fig 4).
In regard to claim 19, Coon et al. disclose wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is located radially about at least 60 percent of the sealing element (as in fig 4).
In regard to claim 21, Coon et al. discloses a method, comprising: positioning a sealing assembly within a wellbore located in a subterranean formation (as in paragraph 2), the sealing assembly including: a mandrel (102, or 101 as in paragraph 17); a sealing element (108) positioned about the mandrel (as in claim 1); a cylindrical extrusion limiter (200 as in fig 4, paragraphs 21-22) positioned radially about a centerpoint of the sealing element (as in fig 4); a first collar sleeve (124) coupled proximate a first end of the sealing element; and a second collar sleeve (116) coupled proximate a second end of the sealing element, wherein the first and second collar sleeves are configured to axially translate relative to one another along the mandrel to move the sealing element between a radially retracted state a radially expanded state (fig 1 vs fig 5); and further wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter is configured to break to deploy from an undeployed state to a deployed state as the sealing element moves from the radially retracted state to the radially expanded state (as in fig 3 or 5, paragraph 22), wherein the cylindrical extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (202) having a width (any dimension may be considered the width, see 112 rejection above); and moving the sealing element from the radially retracted state to the radially expanded state, the moving causing the cylindrical extrusion limiter to break from the undeployed state to the deployed state (paragraph 22). Coon et al. do not disclose the extrusion limiter body having a weakened region substantially proximate a midpoint of the width thereof.
Kellner discloses an extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (700) having a weakened region (704, 706) substantially proximate a midpoint of the width (where “midpoint of the width” may be defined to be any location, see 112 above, i.e. midpoint may be that of the circumference, diameter, radius, thickness etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the extrusion limiter of Coon et al. with the weakened region, as taught by Kellner, in order to provide adjustment of breaking of the limiter (paragraph 40 of Kellner) and since combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coon et al. in view of Kellner as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Clark, Jr. et al. (US 3,351,133).
In regard to claim 4, Coon et al. in view of Kellner discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 2 above, and including Kellner disclosing the notch is located around an inside surface of the extrusion limiter body (as in fig 7) but does not disclose the notch is circumferential. Clark, Jr. et al. disclose a sealing assembly with a weakened region comprising circumferential notch (81, col. 6, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of invention to provide the notch as taught by Coon et al., as modified by Kellner, as circumferential, as taught by Clark, Jr. et al. since simple substitution of one known element (notch orientation) according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 5, Coon et al. in view of Kellner discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 2 above, and including Kellner disclosing the notch is located around an outside surface of the extrusion limiter body (as in fig 7) but does not disclose the notch is circumferential. Clark, Jr. et al. disclose a sealing assembly with a weakened region comprising circumferential notch (81, col. 6, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of invention to provide the notch as taught by Coon et al., as modified by Kellner, as circumferential, as taught by Clark, Jr. et al. since simple substitution of one known element (notch orientation) according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 14, Coon et al. in view of Kellner discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 12 above, and including Kellner disclosing the notch is located around an inside surface of the extrusion limiter body (as in fig 7) but does not disclose the notch is circumferential. Clark, Jr. et al. disclose a sealing assembly with a weakened region comprising circumferential notch (81, col. 6, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of invention to provide the notch as taught by Coon et al., as modified by Kellner, as circumferential, as taught by Clark, Jr. et al. since simple substitution of one known element (notch orientation) according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 15, Coon et al. in view of Kellner discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 12 above, and including Kellner disclosing the notch is located around an outside surface of the extrusion limiter body (as in fig 7) but does not disclose the notch is circumferential. Clark, Jr. et al. disclose a sealing assembly with a weakened region comprising circumferential notch (81, col. 6, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of invention to provide the notch as taught by Coon et al., as modified by Kellner, as circumferential, as taught by Clark, Jr. et al. since simple substitution of one known element (notch orientation) according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
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 D Andrews whose telephone number is (571)272-6558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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 at 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.
/D. ANDREWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/4/2026
Prosecution Insights