DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 21-32 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended to recite more claim language for purposes of overcoming the Brezinski reference introduced in the most recent prior art rejection. However, the claims still read on the reference (see details in rejections herein). If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection. Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language (i.e. structural and/or functional) in light of the specification to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution, preferably towards an allowance
Drawings
The drawings objection most recently introduced in the Office action dated 01/23/2026 has been withdrawn in light of the specification amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16-17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brezinski et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0055758 A1; herein “Brezinski”).
In regard to claim 1, Brezinski discloses: An apparatus (as shown in figures 24-25) for sealing an annular space (i.e., space between 262 and 240/242) proximate to a tubular (240) in a wellbore (262 — abstract, paragraphs [0091-0095], and figures 24-25), the apparatus comprising:
a flexible seal (242) configured to encircle the tubular (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25), wherein the flexible seal comprises a first state (as shown in figure 24) in which an outer diameter of the flexible seal is less than a diameter of the wellbore (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25), and a second state (as shown in figure 25) in which the outer diameter of the flexible seal is the same as the diameter of the wellbore so that the flexible seal seals between the tubular and an interior surface of the wellbore (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25); and
a deployment mechanism (i.e., mechanism comprising 248, 260) comprising a spring (248) configured to cause the flexible seal to transition from the first state to the second state, wherein the deployment mechanism is configured to activate in response to expansion of the tubular (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
However, the figures 24-25 embodiment of Brezinski is silent in regard to having a sand screen; and, a deployment mechanism comprising a spring configured to cause the flexible seal to transition from the first state to the second state by pushing the flexible seal over the sand screen, wherein the deployment mechanism is configured to activate in response to expansion of the sand screen.
Nonetheless, Brezinski teaches expanding another type of embodiment (as shown in figure 2), using an expansion cone (48 — see paragraphs [0054-0061] and figure 2), similar to that of the figures 24-25 embodiment, which also uses an expansion cone (260). Brezinski teaches expanding either a tubular (solid) or screen (perforated tubular) where annular isolators are used, such as that disclosed in the figures 24-25 embodiment — see paragraphs [0008-0010, 0052-0061] and figures 1-2.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the expandable solid tubular, as taught by the figures 24-25 embodiment of Brezinski, to be a perforated tubular (sand screen), as taught by the figures 1-2 embodiments as taught by Brezinski, in light of simple substitution of a known expandable tubulars in wellbores comprising annular isolators since Brezinski expressly teaches that solid or perforated tubing and/or expandable sand screens are known alternatives — see paragraphs [0008-0010, 0052-0061]. Also, see MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 2, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the spring comprises a coil spring configured to encircle the tubular, wherein the deployment mechanism further comprises a coupling (254) configured to releasably fix the flexible seal to the sand screen, wherein the coil spring is configured to bias the flexible seal towards the sand screen, and wherein the coupling is further configured to release the flexible seal in response to expansion of the sand screen (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 3, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the deployment mechanism further comprises a base (244) configured to encircle the tubular and a slip (252) configured to be affixed to the tubular, the flexible seal is mounted to the base, the coupling extends from the base or the flexible seal, and the coil spring extends from the slip to the base (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 16, Brezinski discloses: A system for formation fluid in a well (abstract, paragraphs [0091-0095], and figures 24-25), the system comprising:
a tubular (240) disposed inside a wellbore (262);
the tubular configured to radially expand upon activation (i.e., via 260 — paragraphs [0091-0095], and figures 24-25); and
one or more apparatuses (as shown in figures 24-25), each of the one or more apparatuses comprising:
a flexible seal (242) configured to encircle the tubular (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25), wherein the flexible seal comprises a first state (as shown in figure 24) in which an outer diameter of the flexible seal is less than a diameter of the wellbore (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25), and a second state (as shown in figure 25) in which the outer diameter of the flexible seal is the same as the diameter of the wellbore so that the flexible seal seals between the tubular and the wall of the wellbore (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25); and
a deployment mechanism (i.e., mechanism comprising 248, 260) comprising a spring (248) configured to cause the flexible seal to transition from the first state to the second state, wherein the deployment mechanism is configured to activate (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
However, the figures 24-25 embodiment of Brezinski is silent in regard to:
a system for filtering sand from formation fluid in a well;
one or more sand screens fixed to the tubular and configured to radially expand upon activation, wherein the one or more sand screens are disposed between the tubular and a wall of the wellbore;
one or more apparatuses each disposed proximate to at least one of the one or more sand screens, each of the one or more apparatuses comprising:
a flexible seal configured to encircle the tubular, wherein the flexible seal comprises a first state in which an outer diameter of the flexible seal is less than a diameter of the wellbore, and a second state in which the outer diameter of the flexible seal is the same as the diameter of the wellbore so that the flexible seal seals an area proximate to a sand screen of the one or more sand screens and between the tubular and an interior surface of the wellbore; and
a deployment mechanism comprising a spring configured to cause the flexible seal to transition from the first state to the second state, wherein the deployment mechanism is configured to activate in response to expansion of the sand screen.
Nonetheless, Brezinski teaches expanding another type of embodiment (as shown in figure 2), using an expansion cone (48 — see paragraphs [0054-0061] and figure 2), similar to that of the figures 24-25 embodiment, which also uses an expansion cone (260). Brezinski teaches expanding either a tubular (solid) or screen (perforated tubular) where annular isolators are used, such as that disclosed in the figures 24-25 embodiment — see paragraphs [0008-0010, 0052-0061] and figures 1-2. The figure 2 embodiment of Brezinski teaches the combination of plurality of perforated screens and solid tubulars to run longitudinally concurrently to one another, therefore having the sand screens to be radially between the solid tubular and wellbore.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the expandable solid tubular, as taught by the figures 24-25 embodiment of Brezinski, to be a perforated tubular (sand screen), as taught by the figures 1-2 embodiments as taught by Brezinski, in light of simple substitution of a known expandable tubulars in wellbores comprising annular isolators since Brezinski expressly teaches that solid or perforated tubing and/or expandable sand screens are known alternatives — see paragraphs [0008-0010, 0052-0061]. Also, see MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 17, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the deployment mechanism further comprises a coupling (252 and/or 254) configured to releasably fix the flexible seal to the sand screen, and wherein the coupling is configured to release the flexible seal in response to the expansion of the sand screen (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 21, Brezinski further discloses: wherein in the first state, there is a gap (i.e., annular space) between the flexible seal and the wall of the wellbore (as shown in figure 24).
In regard to claim 22, Brezinski further discloses: wherein in the first state, there is a gap (i.e., annular space) between the flexible seal and the wall of the wellbore (as shown in figure 24).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14 and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brezinski et al. (US Publication Number 2004/0055758 A1; herein “Brezinski”) in view of Whitelaw et al. (US Publication Number 2003/0221840 A1; herein “Whitelaw”).
In regard to claim 10, Brezinski discloses: A method of installing (e.g., 240) in a well (262 — abstract, paragraphs [0091-0095], and figures 24-25), the method comprising:
expanding radially outward (i.e., expansion of 240), a tubular (240) of the well and an interior surface of a wellbore (i.e., inner surface of 262 — abstract, paragraphs [0091-0095], and figures 24-25); and
activating a deployment mechanism (i.e., mechanism comprising 248, 260), by a spring (248) of the deployment mechanism, to cause a flexible seal to transition from a first state (as shown in figure 24) to a second state (as shown in figure 25 — paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25),
wherein in the first state, there is a gap (i.e., annular space) between the flexible seal and the interior surface of the wellbore (as shown in figure 24),
wherein in the second state, the flexible seal spans from the tubular to the interior surface of the wellbore to seal between the tubular and the interior surface of the wellbore (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25),
wherein the activating of the deployment mechanism occurs (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25), and
and wherein the transition from the first state to the second state increases an inner diameter of the flexible seal at an end of the flexible seal and increases an outer diameter of the flexible seal at the end of the flexible seal (as shown in the transitioning from figure 24 to figure 25).
However, the figures 24-25 embodiment of Brezinski is silent in regard to: A method of installing a sand screen in a well, the method comprising:
expanding the sand screen radially outward, wherein the sand screen is disposed between a tubular of the well and an interior surface of a wellbore; and
activating a deployment mechanism, by a spring of the deployment mechanism, to cause a flexible seal to transition from a first state to a second state,
wherein in the first state, there is a gap between the flexible seal and the interior surface of the wellbore,
wherein in the second state, the flexible seal spans from the tubular to the interior surface of the wellbore to seal an area proximate to the sand screen and between the tubular and the interior surface of the wellbore, and
wherein the activating of the deployment mechanism occurs in response to the expanding of the sand screen.
Nonetheless, Brezinski teaches expanding another type of embodiment (as shown in figure 2), using an expansion cone (48 — see paragraphs [0054-0061] and figure 2), similar to that of the figures 24-25 embodiment, which also uses an expansion cone (260). Brezinski teaches expanding either a tubular (solid) or screen (perforated tubular) where annular isolators are used, such as that disclosed in the figures 24-25 embodiment — see paragraphs [0008-0010, 0052-0061] and figures 1-2.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the expandable solid tubular, as taught by the figures 24-25 embodiment of Brezinski, to be a perforated tubular (sand screen), as taught by the figures 1-2 embodiments as taught by Brezinski, in light of simple substitution of a known expandable tubulars in wellbores comprising annular isolators since Brezinski expressly teaches that solid or perforated tubing and/or expandable sand screens are known alternatives — see paragraphs [0008-0010, 0052-0061]. Also, see MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, the modification of Brezinski is silent in regard to: wherein the sand screen is disposed between a tubular of the well and an interior surface of a wellbore.
Nonetheless, Whitelaw teaches a similar type of downhole tubular/screen expansion assembly (abstract, paragraphs [0024-0035], and figures 3-6). Whitelaw teaches that the expandable tubular (150) comprises an inner tubular (151) and a screen (152, 153) disposed on the outside thereof (paragraphs [0024-0035] and figures 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the expandable tubing/screen, as taught by Brezinski, with that of Whitelaw, to yield the predictable result of isolating the producing area and preventing an influx of unwanted sand (paragraphs [0005, 0014] of Whitelaw). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B. Furthermore, Whitelaw cites: “One benefit from using the expandable sand screen is that, once expanded, the annular area between the screen and the wellbore or casing is mostly eliminated. Thus, the gravel pack may no longer be necessary” (paragraph [0010]).
In regard to claim 12, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the expanding of the sand screen comprises activating an activation chamber (246) of the sand screen (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 14, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the transitioning to the second state comprises extending the flexible seal over the sand screen (as taught by Brezinski in view of Whitelaw — see claim 10 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 23, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the spring comprises a coil spring encircling the tubular (i.e., as shown in light of the cross-hatching | see paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 24, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the deployment mechanism comprises a coupling (254) configured to releasably fix the flexible seal to the sand screen (paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 25, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the coil spring biases the flexible seal towards the sand screen (i.e., see transitioning from figure 24 to figure 25 | also, see paragraphs [0091-0095] and figures 24-25).
In regard to claim 26, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the coupling releases the flexible seal in response to expansion of the sand screen (see claim 10 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 27, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Brezinski further discloses: wherein the deployment mechanism further comprises a base (244) encircling the tubular (see claim 10 rejection herein).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-32 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights