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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 appears that it should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The use of the term “olive” throughout the claims without defining the term in the specification leaves the claims indefinite. Although the term is used in the industry, it is not a widespread or definitive description of the structure and therefore is not properly limiting. It is suggested that applicant use more common and more descriptive terminology to refer to the structure applicant intends to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcuccio et al. (US 2016/0251912, hereafter Marcuccio) in view of Klaus et al. (WO 2017001378, hereafter Klaus)
With respect to claim 1, Marcuccio teaches a tubing to annulus converting olive (seal 222) through which fluid is provided from an interior of the body (210, 310) to a conduit (226) through a channel (weep hole 224). (par. 26-28, 48-50, 57-59; Figs. 2A-4B)
Marcuccio does not teach wherein there are also radially extending ports disposed about a circumference of the olive.
Klaus teaches a threaded gauge mandrel (threaded plug gauge 1) having a channel (hollow bore 6) and one or more ports radially disposed about a circumference of the mandrel. (translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include radial ports, as taught by Klaus, in order to allow the fluid to reach radial passageways to provide additional flow options.
With respect to claim 2, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches an axial port (bore 6) extending from an axial end of the olive into a body of the olive. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 3, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the axial port does not extend through an entire axial length of the olive. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 4, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the axial port intersects and is in fluid communication with the one or more radially extending ports. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 5, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the olive is metal. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 6, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches the olive is sized and shaped to be disposed in a tubing pressure port of a gauge mandrel. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 7, Marcuccio teaches a monitoring system comprising: a gauge (302) comprising a sensor and housed on a mandrel (300); the mandrel comprising a pressure test port (tool port 312) and a tubing pressure port (314a) configured to direct tubing pressure to the sensor; and a tubing to annulus converting olive (seal 222) disposed in the tubing pressure port. (par. 48-50; Figs. 3A-3C)
Marcuccio does not explicitly teach the olive configured to block the tubing pressure port and allow annulus pressure to reach the sensor via a flow path through the pressure test port and the olive.
Klaus teaches a threaded gauge mandrel (threaded plug gauge 1) having a channel (hollow bore 6) which can be configured to block flow to allow pressure to reach through the mandrel. (translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to be able to block fluid flow, as taught by Klaus, in order to allow the fluid to flow in preferred passageways.
With respect to claim 8, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches the mandrel defining a central longitudinal bore. (Marcuccio, par. 49, Figs. 3B, Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 9, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the tubing pressure port extends radially through a wall of the mandrel from the central longitudinal bore. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 10, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the tubing pressure port places the central longitudinal bore in fluid communication with the sensor of the gauge. (Marcuccio, par. 48-50; Figs. 3A-3C)
With respect to claim 11, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the pressure test port places an annulus outside the mandrel in fluid communication with the sensor of the gauge. (Marcuccio, par. 48-50; Figs. 3A-3C)
With respect to claim 12, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches the olive comprising: an axial port extending from an axial end of the olive partially through a body of the olive; and one or more radially extending ports disposed about a circumference of the olive, wherein the one or more radially extending ports are in fluid communication with the axial port. (Klaus, translation page 4, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 13, Marcuccio, as modified by Klaus, teaches wherein the olive is oriented such that the axial port is in fluid communication with the sensor of the gauge, and the olive blocks fluid communication between a central longitudinal bore of the mandrel and the sensor of the gauge.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcuccio et al. (US 2016/0251912, hereafter Marcuccio)
With respect to claim 14, Marcuccio teaches a method of monitoring pressure in a wellbore, the method comprising: disposing a tubing to annulus converting olive (seal 222) in a tubing pressure port of a gauge mandrel. (par. 26-28, 48-50, 57-59; Figs. 2A-4B)
Marcuccio does not explicitly teach determining whether to monitor tubing pressure or annulus pressure; and disposing the olive in the port if monitoring annulus pressure.
However, since the purpose of the invention is to monitor pressure and since the presence of the seal allows the user to monitor annulus pressure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dispose the olive in the port in order to be able to monitor annulus pressure.
With respect to claim 15, Marcuccio teaches monitoring annulus pressure via a flow path through a pressure test port of the gauge mandrel and through the tubing to annulus converting olive to a sensor of the gauge mandrel. (par. 26-28, 48-50, 57-59; Figs. 2A-4B)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,978,839; US 7,363,980; US 2013/0186626 and US 11,332,981 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853