DETAILED ACTION
Claims 15-34 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 .
Response to Arguments
The most recent claim objection has been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendment.
Applicant’s representative amended claims 15 (and, similarly claim 27) to further recite: “[...] said two or more radially extending dress-cutter blades protruding radially outward of an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion...” and “[...] axially distanced from the two or more dress-cutter edges by a section of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion...”. Examiner notes that the claims are still in broad in nature in which the most recent prior art rejection still applies.
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. Examiner believes further structurally defining the “two or more radially extending dress-cutter blades protruding radially outward of an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion”, such as, but not limited to, fastening/coupling the “dress-cutting blades” to “an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion” would overcome the most recent prior art rejection. Furthermore, further defining the specific axis that distances the “two or more dress-cutter edges” and “circulation ports” would overcome the most recent prior art rejection.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NO 20211150, filed on 09/24/2021.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/07/2026. Some of these drawings are acceptable, whereas, other issues still remain.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Shear screws “118” and openings/holes going through the wall of elements “1” & “226” are missing in figures 3A and 6.
Openings/ports/holes going through the wall of element “228” are missing in figure 3A.
It is unclear what cross-section and direction figure 2B taken from.
It is unclear what cross-section and direction figure 10C taken from.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7, line 31 has a typographical issue corresponding to the parentheses.
Page 8, line 13 has a typographical issue corresponding to the period adjacent to the comma.
Page 15, line 11 has a typographical issue and should read as “[...] Fig. 1[[.]] these...”.
Examiner suggests reviewing the instant specification as there are other typographical issues not addressed herein which needs attention, such as, but not limited, unnecessary spacing between letters, periods after “Fig. X”, similar to the third bullet point, run-on sentences, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 15-18, 20-21 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0364425 A1; hereinafter “Alexander”) in view of Telfer (US Publication Number 2019/0390527 A1; hereinafter “Telfer”) in further view of Zhan et al. (US Publication Number 2021/0032934 A1; hereinafter “Zhan”).
In regards claim 15, Alexander discloses: A drill pipe string (22) conveying a bridge plug running tool (10 — abstract and paragraphs [0012-0015]) comprising:
an axially extending mandrel (12) with an upper connection (i.e., via 32) to the drill pipe string and provided with a through bore (i.e., space within 12/22 — figure 1 and paragraph [0016]),
wherein said through bore extends to a lower portion of said mandrel and continues into a cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (as shown in the annotated figure 1 hereinafter),
wherein said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion is arranged for being releasably connected by shear screws (16 — paragraph [0012] cites: “[...] the release configuration will take the form of a number of shear members, such as shear screws...”) into a main bore of a J-slot top stinger (i.e., bore space within J-slot top stinger 14) of a bridge plug (29) arranged for being set (paragraph [0015]),
wherein said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion is arranged for being released from said bridge plug by shearing said shear screws and for depositing cement slurry to make a cement plug on top of said bridge plug (paragraphs [0012-0015]),
wherein said mandrel has two or more radially extending dress-cutter blades (26) arranged for dress-cutting into a top of said cement plug (paragraphs [0012-0015]), said two or more radially extending dress-cutter blades protruding radially outward of an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (Examiner notes that “an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion” can correspond to any arbitrary “outermost circumferential surface”, absent specific detail. With that being said, the “outermost circumferential surface” corresponding the element 16, as shown in figure 1, shows for the blades to protrude radially outward therefrom),
wherein said dress-cutter blades are provided with two or more dress-cutter edges (26a, 26b) extending radially beyond said outermost circumferential surface of said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (e.g., extending radially outward from the outer circumferential surface of said “cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion” securing the shear screws 16 — as shown in figures 1 and 3-4) and are arranged for cutting axially into the top of said cement plug (paragraphs [0012-0015]),
wherein said dress-cutter blades and said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion are arranged for tagging the resulting dressed cement plug top surface (paragraph [0015]), and
wherein a circulation port (24) is arranged in said cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion (paragraph [0015]), said circulation port arranged for being covered (as shown in figures 1-2) by said J-slot top stinger before shear screws are sheared (paragraph [0015]), and for being uncovered (as shown in figure 3) when said shear screws are sheared out by pulling off from said J-slot top stinger (paragraph [0015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, though Alexander implies the tool to be introduced in casing (see paragraph [0016]), Alexander is explicitly silent in regards to: “[...] a bridge plug arranged for being set in a casing...”. Furthermore, Alexander is silent in regards to: wherein circulation ports are arranged in said cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion, axially distanced from the two or more dress-cutter edges by a section of the cylindrical sleeve- shaped stinger portion.
Nonetheless, Telfer teaches an analogous single-trip downhole tool comprising dressing a cement plug positioned over a bridge plug (abstract and paragraphs [0051]), similar to that of Alexander. Telfer teaches that the bridge plug (24) is set within a casing (12/36 — paragraphs [0054-0055] and figures 1).
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 bridge plug setting within the wellbore, as taught by Alexander, to be set within a casing of the wellbore, as taught by Telfer, as casing structure within wellbores are well-known in the art, for purposes of, such as, but not limited to, at least withstanding a variety of forces, such as collapse, burst, and tensile failure, preventing the formation wall from caving into the wellbore, isolating the different formations to prevent the flow or crossflow of formation fluid, etc. (see https://web.archive.org/web/20240424124406/https://glossary.slb.com/en/terms/c/casing).
Furthermore, Alexander in view of Telfer are silent in regards to: wherein circulation ports are arranged in said cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion, axially distanced from the two or more dress-cutter edges by a section of the cylindrical sleeve- shaped stinger portion.
Nonetheless, Zhan teaches a downhole mill for dressing in wellbore(s) (paragraph [0045] and figures 2), similar to that of Alexander. Zhan teaches that the milling tool can comprise of multiple circulation ports which are intrinsically axially (i.e., corresponding to arbitrary axis/axes) distanced from the dress-cutter edges (paragraph [0045]).
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 cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion, as taught by Alexander, to include for multiple circulating ports, as taught by Zhan, to provide optimal cooling and removal of cuttings (paragraph [0045] of Zhan).
In regards to claim 16, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Alexander further discloses: wherein said dress-cutter edges are generally axial-transverse to a tool axis so as for when dressing axially into said deposited cement plug forming a transverse, plane surface to be tagged (paragraph [0015] — Alexander), and wherein said dress-cutter blades protrude radially outward of a circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (i.e., circumferential surface of “cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion” securing the shear screws 16 — — Alexander), said two or more dress-cutter edges of said dress-cutter blades extend radially beyond said circumferential surface of said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (figures 1 and 3-4 — Alexander), and said circulation port is axially (i.e., radially axially) distanced from the two or more dress-cutter edges by a section of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (figure 4). Zhan teaches the plurality of circulating ports (see claim 15 rejection herein).
In regards to claim 17, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Alexander further discloses: wherein the dress-cutter blades are arranged for spanning a significant portion of an interior diameter (paragraph [0015] — Alexander) of said casing (as taught by Telfer).
In regards to claim 18, Alexander further discloses: wherein said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion is provided with a transversely arranged front cutter blade having a cutting width corresponding to an outside diameter of said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (as shown in figures 3-4).
In regards to claim 20, Alexander further discloses: wherein said dress-cutter blades have an axial-parallel directed, radial straight shape about said mandrel (Examiner notes that at least figures 3-4 depict the claimed structure of the blades relative to the mandrel to a certain degree).
In regards to claim 21, Alexander further discloses: wherein a slot is formed for each of said dress-cutter blades, said slots cut into the top of said J- slot top stinger (figure 1 and paragraphs [0012 and 0015]).
In regards to claim 29, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Alexander further discloses: wherein the dress-cutter blades are arranged for spanning a significant portion of an interior diameter (paragraph [0015] — Alexander) of said casing (as taught by Telfer).
In regards to claim 30, Alexander further discloses: wherein said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion is provided with a transversely arranged front cutter blade having a cutting width corresponding to an outside diameter of said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (as shown in figures 3-4).
In regards to claim 31, Alexander further discloses: wherein said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion is provided with a transversely arranged front cutter blade having a cutting width corresponding to an outside diameter of said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (as shown in figures 3-4).
Claim(s) 19 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0364425 A1; hereinafter “Alexander”) in view of Telfer (US Publication Number 2019/0390527 A1; hereinafter “Telfer”) in further view of McGarian et al. (US Patent Number 6,050,334; hereinafter “McGarian”) and Gavia et al. (US Publication Number 2015/0034394 A1; hereinafter “Gavia”).
In regards to claim 19, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian disclose claim 15 above.
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: wherein said dress-cutter blades have a part-helical shape about said mandrel.
Nonetheless, Gavia discloses that cutter blades (similar to that of Alexander) can have a part-helical shape about its mandrel, as disclosed in at least paragraph [0047], figures 2-5 and claim 14.
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 cutting blade orientation, as taught by Alexander, with that of Gavia, to yield the predictable result of cutting element(s) in the wellbore (abstract and paragraph [0002] — Gavia). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 32, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian disclose claim(s) above.
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: wherein said dress-cutter blades have a part-helical shape about said mandrel.
Nonetheless, Gavia discloses that cutter blades (similar to that of Alexander) can have a part-helical shape about its mandrel, as disclosed in at least paragraph [0047], figures 2-5 and claim 14.
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 cutting blade orientation, as taught by Alexander, with that of Gavia, to yield the predictable result of cutting element(s) in the wellbore (abstract and paragraph [0002] — Gavia). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 33, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian disclose claim(s) above.
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: wherein said dress-cutter blades have a part-helical shape about said mandrel.
Nonetheless, Gavia discloses that cutter blades (similar to that of Alexander) can have a part-helical shape about its mandrel, as disclosed in at least paragraph [0047], figures 2-5 and claim 14.
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 cutting blade orientation, as taught by Alexander, with that of Gavia, to yield the predictable result of cutting element(s) in the wellbore (abstract and paragraph [0002] — Gavia). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regards to claim 34, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian disclose claim(s) above.
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: wherein said dress-cutter blades have a part-helical shape about said mandrel.
Nonetheless, Gavia discloses that cutter blades (similar to that of Alexander) can have a part-helical shape about its mandrel, as disclosed in at least paragraph [0047], figures 2-5 and claim 14.
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 cutting blade orientation, as taught by Alexander, with that of Gavia, to yield the predictable result of cutting element(s) in the wellbore (abstract and paragraph [0002] — Gavia). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0364425 A1; hereinafter “Alexander”) in view of Telfer (US Publication Number 2019/0390527 A1; hereinafter “Telfer”) in further view of McGarian et al. (US Patent Number 6,050,334; hereinafter “McGarian”) and Bennett et al. (US Publication Number 2015/0275605 A1; hereinafter “Bennett”).
In regards to claim 22, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian discloses claim 15 above.
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: wherein a circulation sub is arranged below said J-slot top stinger of said bridge plug.
Nonetheless, Bennett teaches a single-trip downhole tool comprising cutting elements and a bridge plug, similar to that of Alexander. Bennett cites “[...] other running tools, including drill collars, transition drill pipe, circulation subs, or other components may be located between the section mill 602 and the bridge plug 640” (at least paragraph [0066]).
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 have a circulation sub, as taught by Bennett, to be placed below said J-slot top stinger of said bridge plug, as taught by Alexander, to allow for good cuttings transport and hole cleaning in the annulus (https://glossary.slb.com/Terms/c/circulation_sub.aspx).
In regards to claim 23, in view of the preceding modifications, Bennett further discloses: wherein said circulation sub is a blind circulation sub (Examiner notes that the “circulation sub” disclosed in Bennett is commensurate to Applicant’s definition of a “blind circulation sub”, as Bennett teaches the use of its “circulation sub” while drilling/running the tool in the wellbore — see disclosure related to figures 6 and at least paragraph [0066]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0364425 A1; hereinafter “Alexander”) in view of Telfer (US Publication Number 2019/0390527 A1; hereinafter “Telfer”) in further view of McGarian et al. (US Patent Number 6,050,334; hereinafter “McGarian”) and Al-Mousa et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0056446 A1; hereinafter “Al-Mousa”).
In regards to claim 24, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian discloses claim 15 above. Alexander teaches the negative limitation reciting: wherein no circulation sub is arranged below said J-slot top stinger. Furthermore, Alexander implicitly teaches for setting the bridge plug for abandoning operation (meaning closing fluid communication), before disconnecting said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion from said J-slot top stinger, and before cementing starts (paragraph [0015]).
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: said J-slot top stinger is further connected to said bridge plug with a valve in its through bore, said valve, such as a ball valve, arranged for being open after said bridge plug has been set, pressure test from below is conducted, and said valve arranged for being closed before disconnecting said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion from said J-slot top stinger.
Nonetheless, Al-Mousa teaches a downhole abandonment tool/operation used for deploying/setting a bridge plug (e.g., 104) and pumping cement in a single-trip (paragraphs [0061-0063]), similar to Alexander. Al-Mousa teaches for the bridge plug (104) to comprise a ball valve (124) that has a stinger (108) therein to selectively open/close fluid communication therethrough to allow for pressure testing below the bridge plug and fluidically seal the bridge plug thereafter for abandonment purposes (paragraphs [0061-0063]).
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 bridge plug, as taught by Alexander, to include for the claimed structure to be therein, as taught by Al-Mousa, as the selective opening/closing of the fluid communication within the bridge plug allows for pressure testing below the bridge plug (in other zones) and fluidically sealing the bridge plug thereafter for abandonment purposes (at least paragraphs [0059-0060]).
In regards to claim 25, Alexander further discloses: wherein no circulation sub is arranged below said J-slot top stinger (negative limitation taught by Alexander), and said J-slot top stinger is further connected to said bridge plug with a through bore (as shown in figures 1-2 and paragraph [0015]), said J-slot top stinger provided with a valve (i.e., via 18/34) in its through bore (as shown in figure 2), said valve arranged for being open after said bridge plug has been set (paragraph [0015] teaches for actuating the bridge plug via hydraulic pressure ), and said valve arranged for being closed before disconnecting said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion from said J-slot top stinger (figures 2-3 and paragraph [0015]), and before cementing starts (paragraph [0015]).
However, Alexander is silent in regards to: pressure test from below is conducted.
Nonetheless, Al-Mousa teaches a downhole abandonment tool/operation used for deploying/setting a bridge plug (e.g., 104) and pumping cement in a single-trip (paragraphs [0061-0063]), similar to Alexander. Al-Mousa teaches for the bridge plug (104) to comprise a ball valve (124) that has a stinger (108) therein to selectively open/close fluid communication therethrough to allow for pressure testing below the bridge plug and fluidically seal the bridge plug thereafter for abandonment purposes (paragraphs [0061-0063]).
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 operation, as taught by Alexander, to include for pressure testing from below, as taught by Al-Mousa, to allow for pressure testing below the bridge plug (in other zones) and fluidically sealing the bridge plug thereafter for abandonment purposes (at least paragraphs [0059-0060]).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0364425 A1; hereinafter “Alexander”) in view of Telfer (US Publication Number 2019/0390527 A1; hereinafter “Telfer”) in further view of McGarian et al. (US Patent Number 6,050,334; hereinafter “McGarian”) and Wardley et al. (US Publication Number 2018/0094495 A1; hereinafter “Wardley”).
In regards to claim 26, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian discloses claim 15 above.
However, Alexander in view of Telfer and McGarian are silent in regards to: wherein said running tool comprises a burst disc arranged in a passage from said through bore radially to an outside face of the tool mandrel.
Nonetheless, Wardley teaches that downhole tools can have burst disc(s) (110) associated between the bore of the tool to the to an opening of the tool connecting to the annulus (paragraph [0097]).
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 tool of Alexander to have a burst disc, as taught by Wardley, to avoid any accidental rupturing of other element(s) in the tool not meant to be actuated during unforeseen downhole high pressure situations (paragraph [0097] — Wardley).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0364425 A1; hereinafter “Alexander”) in view of Telfer (US Publication Number 2019/0390527 A1; hereinafter “Telfer”) in further view of Al-Mousa et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0056446 A1; hereinafter “Al-Mousa”) and Zhan et al. (US Publication Number 2021/0032934 A1; hereinafter “Zhan”).
In regards to claim 27, Alexander discloses: A method of forming and verifying a cement plug in a single run in a bore (abstract and paragraphs [0012-0015]), comprising the steps of:
assembling a bridge plug (29) on a drill-pipe string (22) conveying a bridge plug running tool (10 — abstract and paragraphs [0012-0015]), said bridge plug having a bore (paragraph [0015 and figure 1),
wherein said bridge plug running tool comprises a cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (as shown in the annotated figure 1 hereinafter) releasably connected by shear screws (16 — paragraph [0012] cites: “[...] the release configuration will take the form of a number of shear members, such as shear screws...”) into a main bore of a J-slot top stinger (i.e., bore space within J-slot top stinger 14) on an upper part of the bridge plug (figures 1-2 and paragraph [0015]),
wherein said bridge plug running tool further comprises dress-cutting blades (26a, 26b) arranged about a base of said cementing cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (figures 1-4);
running into a well said bridge plug on said running tool to a target depth (paragraph [0015]);
setting said bridge plug (paragraph [0015]);
pulling up on said drill pipe string to disconnect said stinger portion from said bridge plug (paragraph [0015]);
using said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion, circulating in cement slurry on top of said bridge plug to form the cement plug in said casing (paragraph [0015]);
allowing said cement plug to set and harden (paragraph [0015]);
using said running tool dressing a top of said cement plug (paragraph [0015]); and
using said running tool tagging said dressed cement plug to verify a quality of said dressed cement plug (paragraph [0015]),
wherein the dress-cutting blades protrude radially outward of an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion, the dress-cutter blades are provided with dress-cutter edges extending radially beyond said outermost circumferential surface of said cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion (Examiner notes that “an outermost circumferential surface of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion” can correspond to any arbitrary “outermost circumferential surface”, absent specific detail. With that being said, the “outermost circumferential surface” corresponding the element 16, as shown in figure 1, shows for the blades to protrude radially outward therefrom).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, though Alexander implies the tool to be introduced in casing (see paragraph [0016]), Alexander is explicitly silent in regards to: “A method of forming and verifying a cement plug in a single run in a casing bore...” and “[...] setting said bridge plug in the casing...”. Furthermore, Alexander is silent in regards to: “[...] said bridge plug having a through bore and being provided with a valve...”, and
circulation ports are arranged in said cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion, axially distanced from the dress-cutter edges by a section of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion.
Nonetheless, Telfer teaches an analogous single-trip downhole tool comprising dressing a cement plug positioned over a bridge plug (abstract and paragraphs [0051]), similar to that of Alexander. Telfer teaches that the bridge plug (24) is set within a casing (12/36 — paragraphs [0054-0055] and figures 1).
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 bridge plug setting within the wellbore, as taught by Alexander, to be set within a casing of the wellbore, as taught by Telfer, as casing structure within wellbores are well-known in the art, for purposes of, such as, but not limited to, at least withstanding a variety of forces, such as collapse, burst, and tensile failure, preventing the formation wall from caving into the wellbore, isolating the different formations to prevent the flow or crossflow of formation fluid, etc. (see https://web.archive.org/web/20240424124406/https://glossary.slb.com/en/terms/c/casing).
Furthermore, Alexander is silent in regards: “[...] said bridge plug having a through bore and being provided with a valve...”.
Nonetheless, Al-Mousa teaches a downhole abandonment tool/operation used for deploying/setting a bridge plug (e.g., 104) and pumping cement in a single-trip (paragraphs [0061-0063]), similar to Alexander. Al-Mousa teaches for the bridge plug (104) to comprise a ball valve (124) that has a stinger (108) therein to selectively open/close fluid communication therethrough to allow for pressure testing below the bridge plug and fluidically seal the bridge plug thereafter for abandonment purposes (paragraphs [0061-0063]).
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 bridge plug, as taught by Alexander, to include for the claimed structure to be therein, as taught by Al-Mousa, as the selective opening/closing of the fluid communication within the bridge plug allows for pressure testing below the bridge plug (in other zones) and fluidically sealing the bridge plug thereafter for abandonment purposes (at least paragraphs [0059-0060]).
Furthermore, Alexander in view of Telfer and Al-Mousa is/are silent in regard to: circulation ports are arranged in said cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion, axially distanced from the dress-cutter edges by a section of the cylindrical sleeve-shaped stinger portion.
Nonetheless, Zhan teaches a downhole mill for dressing in wellbore(s) (paragraph [0045] and figures 2), similar to that of Alexander. Zhan teaches that the milling tool can comprise of multiple circulation ports which are intrinsically axially (i.e., corresponding to arbitrary axis/axes) distanced from the dress-cutter edges (paragraph [0045]).
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 cylindrical sleeve shaped stinger portion, as taught by Alexander, to include for multiple circulating ports, as taught by Zhan, to provide optimal cooling and removal of cuttings (paragraph [0045] of Zhan).
In regards to claim 28, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Al-Alexander further discloses: after setting said bridge plug (i.e., setting bridge plugs, as taught by both Alexander and Al-Mousa), holding said valve open and setting pressure in said drill pipe string to pressure test said set bridge plug from below; and closing said valve before pulling up said J-slot stinger portion from said J-slot top stinger on said bridge plug (paragraphs [0059-0063] — Al-Mousa).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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