DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 1/16/2026 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
The amendment filed 1/16/2026 has overcome the previously applied claim objection, the previously applied rejections under 112 and the previously applied 102 rejections under Coon et al.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the applicability of the previously applied rejection under Coon et al. in view of Kellner to instant amended claims 1, 11 and 21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the phrase “substantially a midpoint thereof” as meaning within 20 percent of the midpoint of the extrusion limiter body as in these claims is not taught or suggested by any reference. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the phrase is not clearly defined as argued by applicant. 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 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”. Further, new 112 rejections have now been included to highlight that these terms are indefinite as recited.
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 a 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 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). Coon et al. do not disclose the extrusion limiter body having a weakened region substantially proximate a midpoint thereof.
Kellner discloses an extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (700) having a weakened region (704, 706) substantially proximate a midpoint thereof (where “midpoint” 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 thereof (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). Coon et al. do not disclose the extrusion limiter body having a weakened region substantially proximate a midpoint thereof.
Kellner discloses an extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (700) having a weakened region (704, 706) substantially proximate a midpoint thereof (where “midpoint” 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 thereof (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); 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 thereof.
Kellner discloses an extrusion limiter includes an extrusion limiter body (700) having a weakened region (704, 706) substantially proximate a midpoint thereof (where “midpoint” 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
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
2/18/2026