DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 11/07/2025 have been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench et al. (US 20130207312)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 15 Sevadjian discloses a method comprising: positioning a sleeve (220) on a body (230) of a liner hanger (105) configured for insertion in a borehole (figs 1-5); conforming the sleeve to the body of the liner hanger (fig 4).
Sevadjian further teaches that the sleeve on the body places the sleeve (500) between two spikes (300A-B) each configured to contact a downhole surface (fig 4).
Sevadjian is silent regarding the fact that the sleeve is a fluoroplastic material and heating the sleeve.
Hench teaches the fact that the sleeve is made of a fluoroplastic material ([0054]) and heating the sleeve ([0047]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian and Hench before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Sevadjian to include a fluoroplastic material and heating as Hench by Hench in order to create seals suitable for use in harsh environments ([0001]).
Claims 2, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench et al. (US 20130207312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Century et al. (WO85/01545).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination of Sevadjian and Hench is silent regarding the fact that the heating causes the fluoroplastic sleeve to shrink and bond the fluoroplastic sleeve to the body of the liner hanger and the fact that conforming includes: molding the fluoroplastic material onto the body of the liner hanger.
Century teaches molding the material (10) onto the body (22) of the downhole tool (22) (abstract, figs 3-5).
Century further teaches the sleeve to shrink and bond the sleeve to the body of the downhole tool (figs 1-5, page 8 last paragraph, this property is inherent to material).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian, Century and Hench before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Sevadjian and Hench to include molding sleeve on the body of downhole tool as taught by Century in order to help lower cost (page 3, line 11-18).
Regarding claim 13, Sevadjian further discloses placing the sleeve between two spikes (300A-B) each configured to contact a downhole surface (fig 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench et al. (US 20130207312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Svein et al. (WO2009148320)
Regarding claim 6, Sevadjian further discloses heating the f sleeve on the body ([0065]), but is silent regarding placing a heating jacket over the sleeve.
Svein teaches placing a heating jacket over the sleeve (page 4 lines 13-25).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian, Svein and Hench before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Sevadjian and Hench to include a heating jacket as taught by Svein in order to allow more efficient heating.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench et al. (US 20130207312) as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Gorrara et al. (US 20150345249).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Sevadjian and Hench is silent regarding installing metal rings on the metal body and in contact with the fluoroplastic sleeve; and crimping the metal rings.
Gorrara further teaches installing metal rings (42, 44) on the body and in contact with the sleeve (14) ([0016], [0049], [0059], figs 1-2); and crimping the metal rings ([0016], [0049], [0059], figs 1-2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian, Gorrara and Hench before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Sevadjian and Hench to include installing metal rings in order to help fix the sleeve member to the base pipe ([0049])
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench et al. (US 20130207312) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Parekh et al. (US 20180016864).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, the combination of Sevadjian and Hench is silent regarding spirally cutting the sleeve.
The combination of Sevadjian and Hench is silent regarding spirally cutting the sleeve before positioning the sleeve on the body.
Parekh teaches spirally cutting the sleeve before positioning the sleeve on the body (abstract, figs 1-4) in order to help reduce the force needed for setting (abstract).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian, Hench and Parekh before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Sevadjian and Hench to include spirally cutting the sleeve in order to help reduce the force needed for setting (abstract).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench (US 20130207312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphree et al. (US 20170342797).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sevadjian and Hench is silent regarding extruding the sleeve from a three-dimensional printer head.
Murphree further teaches extruding the sleeve from a three-dimensional printer head ([0029], [0050]-[0052]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian, Hench and Murphree before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Sevadjian and Hench to include extruding the sleeve from a three-dimensional printer head as taught by Murphree in order to reduce manufacturing time.
Regarding claim 14, Century further discloses installing spikes (300A-B) on the body, wherein the sleeve is positioned between the spikes (fig 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevadjian et al. (WO2020256729) and Hench et al. (US 20130207312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hench et al. (US20140174763).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sevadjian and Hench is silent regarding the fact that creating the spikes includes machining the metal body to form the spikes.
Hench teaches creating the spikes includes machining the metal body to form the spikes ([0023]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sevadjian, Hench (‘716’) and Hench (‘763’) before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Sevadjian and Hench to include creating the spiking using machining as taught by Hench (‘763’) in order to achieve an improved linger hanger ([0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 17, and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
02/12/2026