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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/3/26 has been entered.
Declarations
The declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/3/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 84-100,103,105-115,117-119,121,129,130, 134-136, 105,118,119,121 based upon the 103 rejections of Tschappat 2185478 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794, Archer RE 19587 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794, Wright 20130181147 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 and Rockwell et al. 1888637 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 as set forth in the last Office action because:
Referring to the declaration from Clint Roger Sabatier, the fact that the there is significant interest on a product that reads on the claims is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716. In this case, there is positive feedback could have been due to the marketing or pricing. Referring to case study, the mere fact that the product reading on the claims could have mitigated one failure does not mean the claims are nonobvious.
Referring to the declaration from Theodore E. Zaleski, Jr, the arguments concerning the pressure used, personnel available, and fluid used , and inspecting for leaks is moot as none of these limitations are in the claim. The declaration further states that the use of removable or reversible connection is disfavored in the design of production head. This is just is an opinion. There is nothing is the cited references that indicates a removable or reversible connection could not be used. The declaration further states that the modification would be nonobvious because the modification would introduce a leak path. Again, this statement does not make the modification nonobvious. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). In this case the modification solves the problem of having an easier repair or replacement of the connection part if the thread become damaged.
The declaration further states that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to features or components of drilling head when designing a production head is just an opinion not supported by the facts. Furthermore there is no evidence that the modification would destroy the functionality of the in the prior art references.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The declaration further argues that Abramson is nonanalogous art. The examiner will note that the Abramson reference was used for its teachings that in general have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Furthermore, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Abrahamson reference is related to the problem of easily changing one connection point for another.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 84-115,118-121, 126,129-130,133,135,136 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11585181. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully encompassed by the claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11585181. Thus, the claim limitations although broader are obviously met by the patent. Therefore, the claims are obviously directed toward the same invention.
Claims 84-88,91-93,97-99,105,107,108,135,136 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-6,9-12,16-19,25,26 of U.S. Patent No. 12078023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully encompassed by the claims 3-6,9-12,16-19,25,26 of U.S. Patent No. 12078023. Thus, the claim limitations although broader are obviously met by the patent. Therefore, the claims are obviously directed toward the same invention.
Claim 128 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11585181 in view of Garcia 20110226488. The patent 11585181 does not disclose replacing the rotation drive. Garcia teaches replacing a rotation drive in case of failure (see paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims disclosed by the patent 11585181 to replace the rotation drive in view of the teaching of Garcia if the current rotation drive should fail.
.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.
Claim(s) 84-94,105-109,113, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschappat 2185478 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 .
Referring to claim 84, Tschappat discloses a modular well tubular head for hanging casing or production tubing comprising: a bowl tubular (B) for connecting with an uphole component, the bowl tubular comprising a bowl body; and a casing connector (A) for reversibly connecting with the bowl tubular and for sealingly connecting with the casing, the casing connector comprising a connector body (10), wherein a flow path is defined through the connector body and the bowl body; a port (13 or 25) defined in the well tubular head for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line; wherein the bowl tubular comprises, an uphole component connection point ( thread portion at top of element B) on the bowl body for connecting with the uphole component, a first modular connection point (flange 18) on the bowl body for reversibly connecting with the casing connector, and a hanger profile (20) defined on an inside surface of the bowl body configured for hanging casing or production tubing; the casing connector comprises, a casing connection point ( threads where casing screw in to element 10) on the connector body for sealingly connecting with the casing, and a second modular connection point (shoulder 15) on the connector body for reversibly connecting with the bowl body. Tschappat does not disclose a removable connection point reversibly connected with the body at the port. Young teaches a well tubular head having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point comprising a threaded box ( at 805) for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the head disclosed by Tschappat to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a means to easily repair or replace a connection part if the threads become damaged.
Referring to claim 85, Tschappat discloses a bowl tubular extended gripping surface ( outer surface of element 17) on the bowl body for gripping with power tongs.
Referring to claim 86, Tschappat discloses port comprises a bowl tubular port (25) defined in the bowl body for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line. Young teaches removable connection point can be located at the threaded port at 25 disclosed by Tschappat.
Referring to claim 87-88,92-93 Young teaches the removable connection part is a flanged ring with a plurality of bolt holes ( holes, bolt 809 fits in) for connecting with the bowl body
Referring to claim 89, Tschappat discloses a bowl tubular access port (25, when port defined in well head body is element 13) defined in the bowl body for establishing fluid 29407948v.1 127876/002342communication between the flow path and coiled tubing ( note, the coiled tubing is not positively recited only recited as part of the intended use of the access port).
Referring to claim 90, Tschappat discloses a casing connector extended gripping surface ( at 10’) on the connector body for gripping with power tongs.
Referring to claim 91, Tschappat discloses port comprises a casing connector port (13) defined in the casing connector body for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line. Young teaches removable connection point can be located at the threaded port at 13 disclosed by Tschappat.
Referring to claim 94, Tschappat discloses a casing connector access port (13, when port defined in well head body is element 25) defined in the connector body for establishing fluid communication between the flow path and coiled tubing (note, the coiled tubing is not positively recited only recited as part of the intended use of the access port).
Referring to claims 105, Tschappat discloses a method of establishing fluid communication with a well including casing, the method comprising:
providing a modular well tubular head comprising a bowl tubular (A) and a casing connector (B), the bowl tubular having a hanger profile ( at 20) configured for hanging casing or production tubing; sealingly securing the casing connector (B) to the casing (14); reversibly connecting a bowl tubular (A) with the casing connector (B, using retaining ring 35 and bolts 36’); providing a flow path from the casing, through the casing connector and through the bowl tubular ( through the center of the elements); Attorney Docket No.: BORD-102-PCT-US Response to Office Action of March 11, 2022 receiving a tubing string (22) through the casing connector and the bowl tubular, the string having a hanger (21) profiled to match the hanger profile; wherein the well tubular head defines a port (13 or 25) defined in the well tubular head for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line and the string comprising a production tubing string (22). Tschappat does not disclose providing a removable connection point reversibly connected with a port, Young teaches having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Tschappat to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged.
Referring to claim 106, Tschappat discloses securing a flow line with to a port. (see page 1, col. 2, lines 25-28, pipes are connected to part at 13). Young teaches removable connection point that is flanged with threads.
Referring to claim 107, Abrahamson teaches have a replacing the connection replacing the removable connection point for the flow line with a different removable connection point ( see paragraph 0044, the removable is replaced if the threads become damaged).
Referring to claim 108, Abrahamson teaches replacing the removable connection point with a replacement removable connection point; and the replacement removable connection point has a flow path diameter or other property that differs from a corresponding flow path diameter or other property of the removable connection point ( see paragraph 0044, the original removable connection point has damaged threads, the replacement removable connection point has undamaged threads).
Referring to claim 109, Tschappat , as modified, discloses the port (25) is defined in the bowl tubular; and the method further comprises securing a flow line with the removable connection point at the bowl tubular to provide fluid communication between the flow path and the flow line ( outlet pipe connected to part at 25, see page 2, col. 1, lines 1-5,).
Referring to claim 113, Tschappat, as modified, discloses the port (13) is defined in the casing connector; and the method further comprises securing a flow line with the removable connection point at the casing connector to provide fluid communication between the flow path and the flow line see page 1, col. 2, lines 25-28, pipes are connected to part at 13).
Referring to claim 135, Tschappat discloses a casing (26).
Referring to claim 136, Tschappat discloses a production tubing string (22).
Claim(s) 84-100,105-109,113,129,130,135,136 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer RE 19587 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 .
Referring to claim 84, Archer discloses a modular well tubular head for hanging casing or production tubing comprising: a bowl tubular (30) for connecting with an uphole component, the bowl tubular comprising a bowl body; and a casing connector (3) for reversibly connecting with the bowl tubular and for sealingly connecting with the casing, the casing connector comprising a connector body, wherein a flow path is defined through the connector body and the bowl body; a port (47,28 or 14) defined in the well tubular head body for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line; wherein the bowl tubular comprises, an uphole component connection point ( threaded portion at top of element 30 that connects to element 42) on the bowl body for connecting with the uphole component, a first modular connection point (flange 36) on the bowl body for reversibly connecting with the casing connector, and a hanger profile (at 43) defined on an inside surface of the bowl body configured for hanging casing or production tubing; the casing connector comprises, a casing connection point ( threads where casing 8 screw in to element 3) on the connector body for sealingly connecting with the casing, and a second modular connection point (flange 24) on the connector body for reversibly connecting with the bowl body. Archer does not disclose a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular head body at the port. Young teaches a well tubular head having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point comprising a threaded box ( at 805) for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the head disclosed by Archer to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged.
Referring to claim 85, Archer discloses a bowl tubular extended gripping surface ( outer surface of element 30) on the bowl body for gripping with power tongs.
Referring to claim 86, Archer discloses port comprises a bowl tubular port (47) defined in the bowl body for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line. Young teaches removable connection point can be located at the threaded port at 27 disclosed by Archer.
Referring to claim 87-88,92-93,98-99, Young teaches the removable connection part is a flanged ring with a plurality of bolt holes ( holes, bolt 809 fits in) for connecting with the bowl body
Referring to claim 89, Archer discloses a bowl tubular access port (47 when port defined in well head body is element 28 or 14) defined in the bowl body for establishing fluid 29407948v.1 127876/002342communication between the flow path and coiled tubing ( note, the coiled tubing is not positively recited only recited as part of the intended use of the access port).
Referring to claim 90, Archer discloses a casing connector extended gripping surface ( outer surface of element 3) on the connector body for gripping with power tongs.
Referring to claim 91, Archer discloses port comprises a casing connector port (14) defined in the casing connector body for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line. Young teaches removable connection point can be located at the threaded port at 14 disclosed by Archer.
Referring to claim 94, Archer discloses a casing connector access port (14, when port defined in well head body is element 47 or 28) defined in the connector body for establishing fluid communication between the flow path and coiled tubing (note, the coiled tubing is not positively recited only recited as part of the intended use of the access port).
Referring to claim 95, Archer discloses an adaptor tubular (16) connected with the bowl body and with the connector body, and wherein the flow path is further defined through the adaptor tubular.
Referring to claim 96, Archer discloses an adaptor extended gripping surface ( outer surface of element 16) on the adaptor tubular for gripping with power tongs.
Referring to claim 97, Archer discloses an adaptor port ( 28) defined in the adaptor tubular for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line. Young teaches removable connection point can be located at the threaded port at 28 disclosed by Archer
Referring to claim 100, Archer discloses an adaptor access port ( 28, when port defined in well head body is element 47 or 14) defined in the adaptor tubular for establishing fluid communication between the flow path and coiled tubing.
Referring to claims 105, Archer discloses a method of establishing fluid communication with a well including casing, the method comprising: providing a modular well tubular head comprising a bowl tubular (30) and a casing connector (3), the bowl tubular having a hanger profile ( at 43) configured for hanging casing or production tubing, sealingly securing the casing connector (3) to the casing (8); reversibly connecting a bowl tubular (30) having a hanger profile (43) with the casing connector ( through adaptor 16); providing a flow path from the casing, through the casing connector and through the bowl tubular; wherein the well tubular head comprises a port (14,28 or 47) defined in the well tubular head for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line ; and receiving a tubing string (45) through the casing connector and the bowl tubular and the string comprises a production tubing string (45), the string having a hanger (44) profiled to match the hanger profile. Archer does not disclose providing a removable connection point reversibly connected with the port. Young teaches having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Archer to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged.
Referring to claim 106 Archer discloses securing a flow line with the port ( see page 1, col. 1, lines 50-53, line is secured at port 14). Young teaches removable connection point that is flanged with threads.
Referring to claim 107, Abrahamson teaches have a replacing the connection replacing the removable connection point for the flow line with a different removable connection point ( see paragraph 0044, the removable is replaced if the threads become damaged).
Referring to claim 108, Abrahamson teaches replacing the removable connection point with a replacement removable connection point; and the replacement removable connection point has a flow path diameter or other property that differs from a corresponding flow path diameter or other property of the removable connection point ( see paragraph 0044, the original removable connection point has damaged threads, the replacement removable connection point has undamaged threads).
Referring to claim 109, Archer , as modified, discloses the port (47) is defined in the bowl tubular; and the method further comprises securing a flow line with the removable connection point at the bowl tubular to provide fluid communication between the flow path and the flow line (pipes connected to part at 47, see page 2, col. 1, lines 18-11).
Referring to claim 113, Archer, as modified, discloses the port (14) is defined in the casing connector; and the method further comprises securing a flow line with the removable connection point at the casing connector to provide fluid communication between the flow path and the flow line (see page 1, col. 1, lines 50-53, line is secured at port 14).
Referring to claim 129, Archer discloses connecting an adaptor tubular (16) with the bowl tubular (30) and with the casing connector (3).
Referring to claim 130, Archer, as modified, discloses the port (28) is defined in the adaptor tubular; and the method further comprises securing a flow line with the removable connection point at the casing connector to provide fluid communication between the flow path and the flow line (see page 1, col. 2, lines 50-53, line is secured at port 28).
Referring to claim 135, Archer discloses a casing (8).
Referring to claim 136, Archer discloses a production tubing string (45).
Claim(s) 84, 103,105,134-136 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockwell et al. 1888637 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 .
Referring to claim 84, Rockwell discloses a modular well tubular head for hanging casing or production tubing comprising: a bowl tubular (17) for connecting with an uphole component, the bowl tubular comprising a bowl body; and a casing connector (5) for reversibly connecting with the bowl tubular and for sealingly connecting with the casing, the casing connector comprising a connector body, wherein a flow path is defined through the connector body and the bowl body; a well tubular head port (thread port on element 5) defined in the connector body for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line; wherein the bowl tubular comprises, an uphole component connection point ( threads at 19) on the bowl body for connecting with the uphole component, a first modular connection point (element 10) on the bowl body for reversibly connecting with the casing connector, and a hanger profile ( tapered surface below element 21) defined on an inside surface of the bowl body configured for hanging casing or production tubing; the casing connector comprises, a casing connection point ( threads where casing 2 screw in to element 5) on the connector body for sealingly connecting with the casing, and a second modular connection point (element 16) on the connector body for reversibly connecting with the bowl body. Rockwell does not disclose a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular head at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line. Young teaches a well tubular head having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point comprising a threaded box ( at 805) for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the head disclosed by Rockwell to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged.
Referring to claims 103, Rockwell discloses wherein an inside diameter of the flow path ( diameter of element 5 around threaded ports) within the connector body is equal to an inside diameter of the casing (2).
Referring to claims 105, Rockwell discloses a method of establishing fluid communication with a well including casing, the method comprising: providing a modular well tubular head comprising a bowl tubular (17) and a casing connector (5), the bowl tubular having a hanger profile ( at 21) configured for hanging casing or production tubing, sealingly securing the casing connector (5) to the casing (2); reversibly connecting a bowl tubular (17) having a hanger profile (at 21) with the casing connector ( using element 16); providing a flow path from the casing, through the casing connector and through the bowl tubular; wherein the well tubular head comprises a port (threaded port in element 5) defined in the well tubular head for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line; and receiving a production tubing string (4) through the casing connector and the bowl tubular, the string having a hanger (21) profiled to match the hanger profile. Rockwell does not disclose providing a removable connection point reversibly connected with the port. Young teaches having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Rockwell to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged.
Referring to claim 134, Rockwell discloses wherein the casing connector has an inside diameter (diameter of element 5 around threaded ports ) equal to an inside diameter of the casing (2).
Referring to claim 135, Rockwell discloses a casing (2).
Referring to claim 136, Rockwell discloses a production tubing string (4).
Claim(s) 105,118,119,121 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright 20130181147 in view of Young 4526243 ,Abrahamson 20170232794.
Referring to claims 105, Wright discloses a method of establishing fluid communication with a well including casing, the method comprising: providing a modular well tubular head comprising a bowl tubular (6) and a casing connector (5), the bowl tubular having a hanger profile ( at 21); sealingly securing a casing connector (5) to the casing (see fig. 3, casing extending from element 5); reversibly connecting a bowl tubular (6) having a hanger profile (where tubing hanger 4 resides) configured for hanging casing or production tubing with the casing connector; providing a flow path from the casing, through the casing connector and through the bowl tubular; Attorney Docket No.: BORD-102-PCT-US Response to Office Action of March 11, 2022 wherein the well tubular head comprises a port (12) defined in the well tubular head for providing fluid communication between the flow path and a flow line; and receiving a production tubing string (tubing string) through the casing connector and the bowl tubular, the string having a hanger (4) profiled to match the hanger profile. Wright does not disclose providing a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular head at the port. Young teaches a well tubular head having a removable connection point that is flanged with threads (see fig. 1, at 801) reversibly connected a body at a port, the removable connection point comprising a threaded box ( at 805) for connecting with a flow line ( at threads 805). Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Wright to have a removable connection point reversibly connected with the well tubular body at the port, the removable connection point for connecting with the flow line in view of the teachings of Young and Abrahamson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged. Abrahamson teaches have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence).
Referring to claim 118-119 and 121, Wright discloses the well tubular head comprises a first access port comprising a bowl tubular access point (2) in the bowl tubular (6) , running the first coiled tubing string ( 9) through the bowl tubular access port (2) comprises running the first coiled tubing string into an annulus between the tubing string and the casing (See fig. 3)
Claim(s) 110-111 and 114-115 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschappat 2185478 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 as applied to claim 105 and further in view of Wright 20150136408 .
Referring to claim 110-111 and 114-115, Tschappat does not specifically disclose replacing the bowl tubular with a different bowl tubular or replacing the casing connector. Wright teaches it is known to replace equipment with different equipment when the work environment is changed (see pargraph 0046). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Tschappat as modified by Young and Abrahamson, to replacing the bowl tubular with a different bowl tubular with different properties or replacing the casing connector with a different casing connector with different properties in view of the teachings of Wright with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the best equipment for the new different environment.
Claim(s) 110-111 and 114-115 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer RE 19587 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 as applied to claim 105 and further in view of Wright 20150136408 .
Referring to claim 110-111 and 114-115, Archer does not specifically disclose replacing the bowl tubular with a different bowl tubular or replacing the casing connector. Wright teaches it is known to replace equipment with different equipment when the work environment is changed (see pargraph 0046). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Archer as modified by Young and Abrahamson, to replacing the bowl tubular with a different bowl tubular with different properties or replacing the casing connector with a different casing connector with different properties in view of the teachings of Wright with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the best equipment for the new different environment.
Claim(s) 117 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer RE 19587 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 as applied to claim 105 and further in view of Webster 20030121653.
Referring to claim 117, Archer does not disclose connecting the casing connector to the wellhead while the casing connector is disconnected from the bowl tubular. Webster teachings it is known in the art to connect a casing connector to the wellhead while the casing connector is disconnected from the bowl tubular (see paragraph 0003, casing head is connected before other equipment is attached). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Archer as modified by Young and Abrahamson, in view of the teachings of Webster to connect the casing connector to the wellhead while the casing connector is disconnected from the bowl tubular with a reasonable expectation of success because this a well-known method to connect a casing connector to a wellhead.
Claim(s) 117 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschappat 2185478 in view of Young 4526243 and Abrahamson 20170232794 as applied to claim 105 and further in view of Webster 20030121653.
Referring to claim 117, Tschappat does not disclose connecting the casing connector to the wellhead while the casing connector is disconnected from the bowl tubular. Webster teachings it is known in the art to connector (see paragraph 0003). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Tschappat as modified by Young and Abrahamson, in view of the teachings of Webster to connect the casing connector to the wellhead while the casing connector is disconnected from the bowl tubular with a reasonable expectation of success because this a well-known method to connect a casing connector to a wellhead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 116,122-125,127,131,132 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.
Referring to claim 116, the cited prior art to do not teach or suggest securing the casing connector to the casing comprises connecting the casing connector to the wellhead while the bowl tubular is connected with the casing connector in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor is there any motivation to modify the cited prior art to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 122, the cited prior art do not teach or suggest the method further comprises running a second coiled tubing string through the second access port and into an annulus between the production tubing string and the casing for establishing fluid communication between the well and the second coiled tubing string in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor is there any motivation to modify the cited prior art to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 125, the cited prior art do not teach or suggest the first access port comprises a casing connector access port defined in the casing connector; and running the first coiled tubing string through the first access port comprises running the first coiled tubing string through the casing connector access port and into an annulus between the string and the casing in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor is there any motivation to modify the cited prior art to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 127, the cited prior art do not teach or suggest replacing the bowl tubular with a bowl tubular lacking a rotation drive in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor is there any motivation to modify the cited prior art to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 131, the cited prior art do not teach or suggest wherein the adaptor tubular further comprises an adaptor tubular access port defined in the adaptor tubular for establishing fluid communication between the well and a coiled tubing string; and the method further comprises running a coiled tubing string through the adaptor tubular port for establishing fluid communication between the well and the coiled tubing string in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor is there any motivation to modify the cited prior art to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 132, the cited prior art do not teach or suggest the flow path has a uniform inside diameter through the adaptor tubular and the casing connector in combination with the other limitations of the claims nor is there any motivation to modify the cited prior art to include this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that since Tschappat, Archer, Rockwell and Wright discloses casing and tubing heads and Young teaches a drilling head there is no motivation to combine theses references with Young. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims broadly claim a well tubular head. Tschappat, Archer, Rockwell and Wright and Young all discloses tubular heads. Note, the Abrahamson reference was used for its teachings that in general have a having a flanged removable part allows to part to be easily repaired or replaced if the threads become damaged (see paragraph 0044, last sentence). Moreover, including the removeable connection point taught by Young does not destroy the functionality of the tubular heads disclosed by Tshcappat, Archer Rockwell and Wright but rather improves the functionality in that there is now method to easily repair or replace the part if the threads become damaged. The applicant further argues that high pressure can be present in the production head. This argument is moot as there are no limitations in the claims directed to pressure requirements. The applicant further argues the use of removeable or reversible connection is disfavored in the design of production head. This statement is an opinion that is not supported by facts. The applicant argues that having the modification would introduce an additional pathway for leaks. However, the modification would also allow quicker repair or replacement of connection parts. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). the modification solves the problem of having an easier repair or replacement of the connection part if the thread become damaged.
The applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would seek to minimize the complexity of the production head to reduce the risk of potential failures and the removable connection increases the complexity of the production head. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to features or components of drilling head when designing a production head is just an opinion not supported by the facts. Furthermore there is no evidence that the modification would destroy the functionality of the in the prior art references.
The applicant argues the commercial success supports the nonobviouness of the claims. The fact that the there is significant interest on a product that reads on the claims is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716. In this case, there is positive feedback could have been due to the marketing or pricing. Referring to case study, the mere fact that a product reading on the claims could have mitigated one failure does not mean the claims are nonobvious.
As no terminal disclaimer has been filed the double patenting rejection still remains.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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 at (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.
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights