DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 12/17/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
General Comments
The examiner appreciates the applicants’ efforts at cleaning/clearing up the claims. However, the claim language still remains grammatically cumbersome. Although the examiner has attempted to list some of the clarity issues, applicants should carefully review the claims to correct errors.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
in claim 8, line 18, it appears that “the” is missing before wedges;
in claim 24, line 6, it appears that “the” is missing before seal; and
in claim 28, line 4, it appears that “the” is missing before device.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are still replete with a lack of antecedent basis, lack of clarity, lack of consistency, and indefiniteness. The examiner has attempted to point out indefiniteness and a lack of clarity despite the grammatically cumbersome nature of the claims. However, applicants are encouraged to carefully review the claims for further issues.
It should be noted that using pronouns (such as “its”, “their”, “them”, or “these”) typically makes the limitation indefinite. At least claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 27 are indefinite due to the use of pronouns.
Claim 1, line 3, recites “wherein the device” and “a device”. It is not clear and therefore indefinite how many “devices” are being claimed.
Claim 1 recites a “finishing tool” it is not clear what a finishing tool is. The specification does not describe a finishing tool.
Claim 1 recites that “said device simultaneously allows the passage of hydrocarbon fluids or other fluids”. It is not understood what exactly is simultaneously moved through the passage (i.e. simultaneously moving hydrocarbon fluids with other fluids).
Claim 3 recites “a lower mechanical anchor”. It is not clear if this is the same anchor recited in claim 1 or a different anchor.
Claim 8, line 8, recites “a blow”. It is not understood what a blow is and the specification does not describe a blow.
Claim 9, line 2, recites “the hermeticity cylinder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 14 recites “the lower end” and “the lowest sleeve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 14 recites “these agents”. This phrase is indefinite as it is unclear which agents are being referred to. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 16 recites “wedges that are effective to fix the device”. It is unclear what the term effective is intended to mean. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this phrase are.
Claim 16, line 11, recites “the wedge/wedge holder assembly”. There is no antecedent basis for this phrase. Further, it is noted that in claim 3, this assembly is designated as a wedge-wedge holder assembly. If these structures (claim 3 and claim 16) are the same, they should be written in the same manner.
Claim 18 recites “the uppermost part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 19 recites “the inside of the production or casing pipe”, the polymeric seal”, and “the inner wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 20 recites “the internal hermeticity elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 21 recites “the lowermost part”, the polymeric seal”, and “the uppermost part”, and the relative movement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 22, line 3, recites “a blow”. It is not understood what a blow is and the specification does not describe a blow.
Claim 27 recites “inside diameter”. It is not clear which inside diameter is being claimed.
Claim 27 recites “the impacts”, “the production percentages”, and “fluids viscosity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 28 recites “the required depth”, “the hermetic sealing”, and “the upper end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 29 recites “the mechanical equipment”, “the type of leak”, “the annular space”, “the required zones”, and the fluid supply”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 30 recites “the mechanical equipment”, “the first stage”, “the acquisition”, “the operating requirements”, “the operation”, the bolt”, and “the slick line string”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 30, lines 9-11 recite that the bolt is ruptured. However, lines 14-15 recite that no bolt is broken, and line 18 again recites that a bot is broken. It is not understood what is actually being claimed. Does the bot break/rupture or does it remain intact? Are there more than one bolt being claimed?
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10-13, 15, 17, and 23-26 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
It should be noted that this action has no art rejections. Although a meaningful and complete search is not possible without claim clarity and definiteness, it would appear that claims 2-3, 5-8, 14-15,19, and 21 likely contain allowable subject matter when taken as a whole and if when corrected do not change the scope of the claim. Claims 10-11, 13, 16, 20, 22-23, and 26-30 may contain allowable subject matter (when corrected and with an unchanged scope) but are presently too unclear for the examiner to state so definitively.
Due to the indefiniteness of claim 1, claim 1 cannot be definitively determined to be allowable. However, the art listed below (see citation of prior art below) might not likely disclose all of the subject matter of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clemens (US 10612349), Hallundbaek (US 9447651), Leighton et al. (US 20120211222), McGarian et al. (US 7789138), Cook et al. (US 7048067), Head (US 20250122774), and Fillppov et al. (US 10837264). Due to indefiniteness issues of claim 1 it is not clear if amended claim 1 is fully distinguishable over the art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1/5/2026