DETAILED ACTION
Claims 71-104 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I (i.e., figures 1-2 and 5-7, with figure 4A as the species – one end “open” and the other end “closed”) in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unity of invention are met as there is a special feature between the claimed inventions, and that it would not cause a search burden. This is found persuasive and therefore the most recent restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The line quality of all the drawings, when zoomed in, illustrate an inconsistent line quality. 37 CFR 1.84 (Standards for Drawings), section L (Character of lines, numbers, and letters) states: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined”. The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem.
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.
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.
Claim 104 is 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.
Claim 104 recites: “A frac tree including the system of claim 71 connected into the frac tree.” Examiner notes that the claim is confusing as “frac tree” was already previously introduced in parent claim 71, in which one skilled in the art would be question if the “a frac tree” (as recited in claim 104) corresponds to the previously recited element, or a new element, and if so, then how the new element is being interpreted and defined in context with the parent claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the instant specification and will assume for the limitation to read as if the “frac tree” (as recited in the parent claim 71) has the “system” connected into thereof.
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) 71-72, 85-86, and 104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0112780 A1; herein “Watkins”) in view of Fripp et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0355054 A1; herein “Fripp”).
In regard to claim 71, Watkins discloses: A system (as shown in figure 1) for launching an activation device (18) to a frac tree (6a — abstract and paragraphs [0032-0047]), comprising:
a loading station (24) for the activation device, the loading station being located remotely from the frac tree (paragraphs [0034-0036, 0041-0043, 0046-0047]);
a staging valve system (i.e., comprising 36, 40 and/or valve(s) of the wellhead 6a) adapted to connect to the frac tree for staging the activation device from a low pressure zone above the staging valve system to a high pressure zone in the frac tree (paragraphs [0031, 0041-0044, 0047]);
a tubular pneumatic line (22) connected to the loading station for delivering the activation device to the staging valve system (paragraphs [0032-0047]);
pneumatically conveying the activation device in the pneumatic line, the activation device having a generally cylindrical body (i.e., “dart shaped”), at least one closed end (as shown in figure 1), and one or more circumferential seals (i.e., “wiper seals” — paragraph [0041]) carried on an outer surface of the activation device to support the activation device within the pneumatic line and to pneumatically convey the carrier through the pneumatic line when air pressure is imparted on the closed end of the activation device (paragraphs [0032-0047]); and
an air source (i.e., generated from at least 36) to impart air pressure on the closed end of the activation device and within the pneumatic line to pneumatically convey the activation device through the pneumatic line from the loading station to the staging valve system (paragraphs [0032-0047]).
However, Watkins is silent in regard to the following:
“[...] a carrier for pneumatically conveying the activation device in the pneumatic line, the carrier having a generally cylindrical body, at least one closed end, and one or more circumferential seals carried on an outer surface of the carrier to support the carrier within the pneumatic line and to pneumatically convey the carrier through the pneumatic line when air pressure is imparted on the closed end of the carrier; and
an air source to impart air pressure on the closed end of the carrier and within the pneumatic line to pneumatically convey the activation device through the pneumatic line from the loading station to the staging valve system.”
Specifically, Examiner notes that Watkins fails to teach the combination of a “carrier” + “activation device”, as claimed.
Nonetheless, Fripp teaches a downhole system which uses a dart assembly (200) which is configured to actuate with the downhole fracturing device (i.e., comprising 130) and thereafter dissolve (paragraphs [0037-0040] and figures 1-2 of Fripp), similar to that of Watkins (see paragraphs [0054, 0063] of Watkins). Fripp teaches the dart assembly (200) to comprise a “carrier” (202) and “activation device” (220), where the “activation device” degrades after fracturing operations (paragraphs [0037-0040, 0072] and figures 1-2).
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 dart assembly, as taught by Watkins, to include for the dart assembly to comprise a “carrier” and “activation device”, as taught by Fripp, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of dissolving a portion of the dart assembly post fracturing downhole to allow reopening the passageway (paragraph [0072] of Fripp), which meets the same end-result as Watkins, with the benefit that a portion of the dart assembly can be re-used in future fracturing operations, if needed, which would save money and manufacturing time in remaking the non-dissolvable, reusable part(s) of dart assembly. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 72, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Watkins further discloses: a launch housing (30) connected to the staging valve system, the launch housing having a housing inlet (i.e., uphole opening) and a housing outlet (i.e., downhole opening) and a launch passageway extending between the housing inlet and the housing outlet (paragraph [0037] and figure 1), the launch passageway being shaped and sized to accommodate the activation device for delivery from the housing inlet to the housing outlet (paragraph [0037]), the housing outlet being axially aligned with, and connected to, the staging valve system (paragraph [0037]); and the pneumatic line being connected to the housing inlet of the launch housing such that the activation device and the carrier are pneumatically conveyed through the pneumatic line from the loading station for discharging the activation device from the carrier to the housing inlet for delivery via the launch passageway and the housing outlet to the staging valve system (paragraph [0037]).
In regard to claim 85, Watkins in view of Fripp teach the preceding claim.
However, the preceding modification of Watkins in view of Fripp is silent in regard to: “[...] one or more position indicators, sensors and/or cameras to provide signals, images or information relating to one or more of location of the activation device, pressure, and valve position to monitor progression of the activation device at one or more locations at, within or between the loading station and the staging valve system.”
Nonetheless, Fripp teaches to incorporate sensor(s) within the dart assembly for confirming the proximity/position of the dart assembly with respect to the downhole fracturing device (paragraphs [0043-0044] and figures 1-2).
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 “activation device”, as taught by Watkins, to include for sensor(s), as taught by Fripp, to allow for remotely determining the proximity/positioning of the “activation device” relative to the downhole fracturing device (paragraphs [0043-0044] of Fripp).
In regard to claim 86, Watkins discloses: A method of remotely launching an activation device (18) into a frac tree (6a — abstract and paragraphs [0032-0047]), comprising:
a) providing a loading station (24) for the activation device located remotely from the frac tree (paragraphs [0034-0036, 0041-0043, 0046-0047]);
b) providing a staging valve system (i.e., comprising 36, 40 and/or valve(s) of the wellhead 6a) adapted to connect to the frac tree for staging the activation device from a low pressure zone above the staging valve system to a high pressure zone in the frac tree (paragraphs [0031, 0041-0044, 0047]);
c) providing a pneumatic line (22) connected to the loading station for delivering the activation device to the staging valve system (paragraphs [0032-0047]);
d) loading the activation device at the loading station into the pneumatic line (paragraphs [0032-0047]); and
e) pneumatically conveying the activation device through the pneumatic line from the loading station to the staging valve system, with the activation device pneumatically sealed (i.e., via “wiper seals” — paragraph [0041]) in the pneumatic line (paragraphs [0032-0047]).
However, Watkins is silent in regard to the following:
“[...] d) loading the activation device and a carrier at the loading station into the pneumatic line; and
e) pneumatically conveying the activation device and the carrier through the pneumatic line from the loading station to the staging valve system, with the carrier pneumatically sealed in the pneumatic line.”
Specifically, Examiner notes that Watkins fails to teach the combination of a “carrier” + “activation device”, as claimed.
Nonetheless, Fripp teaches a downhole system which uses a dart assembly (200) which is configured to actuate with the downhole fracturing device (i.e., comprising 130) and thereafter dissolve (paragraphs [0037-0040] and figures 1-2 of Fripp), similar to that of Watkins (see paragraphs [0054, 0063] of Watkins). Fripp teaches the dart assembly (200) to comprise a “carrier” (202) and “activation device” (220), where the “activation device” degrades after fracturing operations (paragraphs [0037-0040, 0072] and figures 1-2).
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 dart assembly, as taught by Watkins, to include for the dart assembly to comprise a “carrier” and “activation device”, as taught by Fripp, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of dissolving a portion of the dart assembly post fracturing downhole to allow reopening the passageway (paragraph [0072] of Fripp), which meets the same end-result as Watkins, with the benefit that a portion of the dart assembly can be re-used in future fracturing operations, if needed, which would save money and manufacturing time in remaking the non-dissolvable, reusable part(s) of dart assembly. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 87, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Watkins further discloses: a launch housing (30) connected to the staging valve system, the launch housing having a housing inlet (i.e., uphole opening) and a housing outlet (i.e., downhole opening) and a launch passageway extending between the housing inlet and the housing outlet (paragraph [0037] and figure 1), the launch passageway being shaped and sized to accommodate the activation device for delivery from the housing inlet to the housing outlet (paragraph [0037]), the housing outlet being axially aligned with, and connected to, the staging valve system (paragraph [0037]); and the pneumatic line being connected to the housing inlet of the launch housing such that the activation device and the carrier are pneumatically conveyed through the pneumatic line from the loading station for discharging the activation device from the carrier to the housing inlet for delivery via the launch passageway and the housing outlet to the staging valve system (paragraph [0037]).
In regard to claim 104, Watkins further discloses: A frac tree including the system of claim 71 connected into the frac tree (note 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection herein | also, based on Examiner’s BRI, Watkins anticipates the limitation as disclosed in paragraphs [0032-0047] and figure 1).
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0112780 A1; herein “Watkins”) in view of Fripp et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0355054 A1; herein “Fripp”) in further view of Ferguson et al. (US Publication Number 2014/0262302 A1; herein “Ferguson”).
In regard to claim 76, Watkins in view of Fripp teaches the preceding claim.
However, Watkins is silent in regard to: wherein the pneumatic line comprises a flexible hose in one or more sections, one or more pipe sections joined to one or more flexible hose sections, or one or more curved pipe sections joined to one or more linear pipe sections or to one or more flexible hose sections.
Nonetheless, Ferguson teaches a similar type of launching system (110) coupled to a wellhead (105) for delivering fracturing devices (paragraphs [0027-0028] of Ferguson), similar to that of Fripp. Ferguson teaches using flexible tubing section(s) (300) to coupled the system, as shown in figure 1 (paragraphs [0027-0033]).
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 simply substitute the line, as taught by Watkins, with a flexible line, as taught by Ferguson, to yield the predictable result of allowing better maneuverability than solid pipelines. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 73-75, 77-84, and 87-103 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate to remote launching system(s) corresponding to wellheads.
In regard to claim 71 (and, similarly claim 86) Cherewyk et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0056442 A1; herein “Cherewyk”) is another close reference. Cherewyk teaches the following:
A system (i.e., comprising 50) for launching an activation device (26) to a frac tree (16 — paragraphs [0062-0088, 0114-0126] and figures 1-5), comprising:
a loading station (i.e., area corresponding to 50) for the activation device;
a carrier (12) for conveying the activation device, the carrier having a generally cylindrical body, at least one closed end (i.e., closed with respect to 26, as shown in figure 6).
However, Cherewyk fails to teach the following:
“[...] the loading station being located remotely from the frac tree;
a staging valve system adapted to connect to the frac tree for staging the activation device from a low pressure zone above the staging valve system to a high pressure zone in the frac tree;
a tubular pneumatic line connected to the loading station for delivering the activation device to the staging valve system;
a carrier for pneumatically conveying the activation device in the pneumatic line, and one or more circumferential seals carried on an outer surface of the carrier to support the carrier within the pneumatic line and to pneumatically convey the carrier through the pneumatic line when air pressure is imparted on the closed end of the carrier; and
an air source to impart air pressure on the closed end of the carrier and within the pneumatic line to pneumatically convey the activation device through the pneumatic line from the loading station to the staging valve system.”
The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination thereof, does not teach, nor would be obvious to modify the reference to meet the limitation(s), as such a modification would require an improper reliance on hindsight reasoning and require too significant of a redesign of the prior art system/method.
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
Prosecution Insights