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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 03/31/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, and 18 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 12/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive, due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of AAPA in view of Watson.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/31/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1; hereinafter AAPA) in view of Watson et al. (U.S. 2021/0293123).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA discloses: a system for a gas lift system in a well having a wellhead (114), the system comprising: a tubing (119) disposed in a casing (117) in the well (115) defining a tubing-casing annulus (113) in the well 115 (see paragraph 0022); a TCA valve (109) installed on the wellhead (114) coupled to the tubing (119) and the casing (117) defining a flow path for a fluid flowing from the TCA (113) to the tubing 119 (see paragraph 0022); a first injection line (108) coupled to the TCA valve (109) configured to inject the fluid into the TCA 113 (see paragraph 0022); a fixed restriction disposed in a cavity of the TCA valve (109) hydraulically connected to the first injection line 108 (see paragraph 0022).
AAPA fails to disclose wherein the fixed restriction comprises an orifice plate defining an aperture comprising a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the cavity.
Watson teaches a well system with a check valve wherein a fixed restriction (92) comprises an orifice plate (92) defining an aperture comprising a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of a cavity (see paragraph 0022; see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein the fixed restriction comprises an orifice plate defining an aperture comprising a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the cavity, as taught by Watson. Having a check valve with a seat that has an aperture with a smaller diameter than a cavity of the check valve is a well known feature in the art (see also Haines et al. (U.S. 2021/0062926). Furthermore, having a seat would provide better sealing through the valve.
Regarding claim 9, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the fluid is a gas (see paragraph 0022)
Regarding claim 11, AAPA discloses: a method for a gas lift system in a well having a wellhead (114), the method comprising: running a tubing (119) inside a casing (117) in the well (115) defining a tubing-casing annulus 113 (see paragraph 0022); installing a TCA valve (109) to the wellhead (114) coupled to the tubing (119) and the casing (117) and to a first injection line (108) configured to inject a fluid into the TCA 113 (see paragraph 0022); opening the TCA valve (109) to flow the fluid from the first injection line (108) to the TCA (113) and into the tubing 119 (see paragraph 0022); restricting the fluid flow from the first injection line into the TCA valve (109), via a fixed restriction disposed in a cavity of the TCA valve (109) (see paragraph 0022).
AAPA fails to disclose wherein restricting the fluid flow comprises using an orifice plate to define an aperture comprising a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the cavity.
Watson teaches a well system with a check valve wherein restricting a fluid flow comprises using an orifice plate (92) to define an aperture comprising a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of a cavity (see paragraph 0022; see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein restricting the fluid flow comprises using an orifice plate to define an aperture comprising a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the cavity, as taught by Watson. Having a check valve with a seat that has an aperture with a smaller diameter than a cavity of the check valve is a well-known feature in the art (see also Haines et al. (U.S. 2021/0062926). Furthermore, having a seat would provide better sealing through the valve.
Regarding claim 19, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the fluid is a gas (see paragraph 0022).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Watson in further view of Smith (U.S. 2008/0179063).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach a second injection line disposed in the gas lift system configured to inject gas into the well coupled to the wellhead.
Smith teaches a gas lift system comprising a second injection line (14) disposed in the gas lift system configured to inject gas into a well (5) coupled to a wellhead (see paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide a second injection line disposed in the gas lift system configured to inject gas into the well coupled to the wellhead. Doing so would reduce fluid friction pressure of the well system (see paragraph 0019), as recognized by Smith.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Watson in further view of Al-Mulhem et al. (U.S. 2015/0027722).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach wherein the first injection line is made of nickel alloy material configured to withstand high pressure and high temperature.
Al-Mulhem teaches a gas lift system wherein nickel alloy is used (see paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide wherein the first injection line is made of nickel alloy material configured to withstand high pressure and high temperature. Doing so would provide a material operable at temperatures found downhole that are resistant to chemicals (see paragraph 0040), as recognized by Al-Mulhem.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Watson, in further view of Elmer (U.S. Patent No. 10,077642).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1A from Elmer.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, AAPA as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach a tubing hanger configured to couple the TCA valve is coupled to the tubing, and a flange configured to couple the TCA valve to the casing.
Elmer teaches a well system comprising a tubing hanger (see annotated figure above) configured to couple a TCA valve (185) is coupled to a tubing (120), and a flange (see annotated figure above) configured to couple the TCA valve (185) to a casing 110 (see Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified AAPA to provide a tubing hanger configured to couple the TCA valve is coupled to the tubing, and a flange configured to couple the TCA valve to the casing, as taught by Elmer. Doing so would provide easy attachment of the TCA valve to the tubing and casing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are allowed.
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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 supervisors, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights