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
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chirko et al. (U.S. 2019/0128454A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (U.S. 2020/0217177A1), Chirko et al. (U.S. 2019/0128454A1).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad discloses a fluid transfer assembly (10; fig. 1 and para 0019), comprising:
a first casing (32; para 0021: “pipes”) positioned above-ground (18; see fig. 1 and para 0019), wherein the first casing (32) is configured to receive fluid from a fluid supply system (28) and to provide the fluid to a well assembly (14, 16, 20, 22);
a second casing (34; fig. 1 and para 0021) positioned above-ground (18), wherein the second casing (34) is configured to receive the fluid from the fluid supply system (28) and to provide the fluid to the well assembly (14, 16, 20, 22; as shown in fig. 1); and
a connection assembly (30; para 0021) coupling the first wellbore casing (32) and the second wellbore casing (34; as shown in fig. 1).
However, Conrad is silent to the casings being wellbore casings, wherein the first and second wellbore casings are configured to be disposed within a wellbore to facilitate fluid flow through the wellbore.
Chirko et al. teach a fluid flow line located above ground for transporting frac fluid in high pressure frac environments (refer to abstract and para 0069). The flow line (200, 300, 400, 500, 600) comprises a first section (102) and a second section (106) connected by a connector (see figs. 1A, 1B). The flow line is enabled to be used in wellbore operations, the flow line may be able to withstand high pressures and may be robust to damage from corrosive and erosive material, such as sand or other particulates flowing therethrough (refer to para 0036, 0065, 0089, and 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the casings of Conrad with the casings of Chirko et al. to withstand high pressures associated with wellbore operations and robust to damage from corrosive and erosive material, such as sand or other particulates flowing in wellbore operations (refer to para 0036, 0065, 0089, and 0112).
.
Regarding claim 14, Conrad discloses a method for forming a fluid transfer assembly (10; fig. 1 and para 0019), comprising:
positioning a plurality of casings (32, 34; para 0021: “pipes”) above-ground (18; see figs. 1-2);
coupling the plurality of casings (32, 34) to one another by at least one connection assembly (30; para 0021); and
fluidly coupling the plurality of casings (32, 34) to a fluid supply system (28) and to a well assembly (14, 16, 20, 22) to enable the plurality of casings (32, 34) to receive fluid from the fluid supply system (28) and to provide the fluid to the well assembly (14, 16, 20, 22; as shown in fig. 1).
However, Conrad is silent to the casings being wellbore casings, wherein the plurality of wellbore casings are configured to be disposed within a wellbore to facilitate fluid flow through the wellbore.
Chirko et al. teach a fluid flow line located above ground for transporting frac fluid in high pressure frac environments (refer to abstract and para 0069). The flow line (200, 300, 400, 500, 600) comprises a first section (102) and a second section (106) connected by a connector (see figs. 1A, 1B). The flow line is enabled to be used in wellbore operations, the flow line may be able to withstand high pressures and may be robust to damage from corrosive and erosive material, such as sand or other particulates flowing therethrough (refer to para 0036, 0065, 0089, and 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the casings of Conrad with the casings of Chirko et al. to withstand high pressures associated with wellbore operations and robust to damage from corrosive and erosive material, such as sand or other particulates flowing in wellbore operations (refer to para 0036, 0065, 0089, and 0112).
Regarding claim 17, Conrad discloses a fluid transfer assembly (10; fig. 1 and para 0019), comprising:
a first casing (32; para 0021: “pipes”) positioned outside of a wellbore (14) of a well (above ground 18; see fig. 1 and para 0019), wherein the first casing (32) is configured to receive fluid from a fluid supply system (28) and to provide the fluid to a well assembly (14, 16, 20, 22);
a second casing (34; fig. 1 and para 0021) positioned outside of the wellbore (above ground 18; see fig. 1 and para 0019), wherein the second casing (34) is configured to receive the fluid from the fluid supply system (28) and to provide the fluid to the well assembly (14, 16, 20, 22; as shown in fig. 1); and
a connection assembly (30; para 0021) coupling the first casing (32) and the second casing (34; as shown in fig. 1);
However, Conrad is silent to the casings being wellbore casings, wherein the first and second wellbore casings are configured to be disposed within a wellbore to facilitate fluid flow through the wellbore.
Chirko et al. teach a fluid flow line located above ground for transporting frac fluid in high pressure frac environments (refer to abstract and para 0069). The flow line (200, 300, 400, 500, 600) comprises a first section (102) and a second section (106) connected by a connector (see figs. 1A, 1B). The flow line is enabled to be used in wellbore operations, the flow line may be able to withstand high pressures and may be robust to damage from corrosive and erosive material, such as sand or other particulates flowing therethrough (refer to para 0036, 0065, 0089, and 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the casings of Conrad with the casings of Chirko et al. to withstand high pressures associated with wellbore operations and robust to damage from corrosive and erosive material, such as sand or other particulates flowing in wellbore operations (refer to para 0036, 0065, 0089, and 0112).
Claims 2, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (U.S. 2020/0217177A1), in view of Chirko et al. (U.S. 2019/0128454A1) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 17 above, in view of Kibler et al. (U.S. 2019/0302810A1).
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 18, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al. discloses all the features of these claims as applied to claims 1, 14, and 17 above; however, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., is silent to a first maximum design pressure of the first wellbore casing is less than 20,000 psi, and a second maximum design pressure of the second wellbore casing is less than 20,000 psi.
Kibler et al. teach that it is generally known to deliver fracking fluid at designed operating pressures of about 7,500 psi, 10,000 psi or about 15,000 psi, and pipes may be selected to accommodate these pressures (refer to para 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the maximum design pressure of the first and second wellbore casing to be less than 20,000 psi, based on and to accommodate/handle the fracking operating pressure delivered to the wellbore (as taught by Kibler et al. (refer to para 0019).
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (U.S. 2020/0217177A1), in view of Chirko et al. (U.S. 2019/0128454A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giraldo et al. (U.S. 2023/0122987A1).
Regarding claim 4, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., discloses all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., is silent to the connection assembly comprises a collar, the collar has first interior threads at a first longitudinal end of the collar, the first interior threads are configured to engage first exterior threads at a first longitudinal end of the first wellbore casing, the collar has second interior threads at a second longitudinal end of the collar, and the second interior threads are configured to engage second exterior threads at a second longitudinal end of the second wellbore casing. In other words, Conrad only discloses a generic connection assembly for the casings. It does not show to teach the specific type of connection assembly.
Giraldo et al. teach a tubular connection (100, fig. 1) comprising a collar (outer surface of 300), the collar has first interior threads (304; see fig. 2A) at a first longitudinal end of the collar (around collar end 302), the first interior threads (304) are configured to engage first exterior threads (204) at a first longitudinal end of first wellbore casing (200; refer to para 0045), the collar has second interior threads (305; para 0051) at a second longitudinal end of the collar (around collar end 301), and the second interior threads (305) are configured to engage second exterior threads (404) at a second longitudinal end of second wellbore casing (400; as sown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted on type of pipe connection assembly with another (i.e., the generic connection assembly of Conrad with that of Giraldo et al.) to achieve the predictable result of connecting casing pipes.
Claims 3, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (U.S. 2020/0217177A1), in view of Chirko et al. (U.S. 2019/0128454A1) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 17 above, and further in view of Goodman (U.S. 11,156,526B1).
Regarding claims 3, 16, and 19, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., discloses all the features of these claims as applied to claims 1, 14, and 17 above; however, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., is silent a wherein a first length of the first wellbore casing is at least 30 feet, and a second length of the second wellbore casing is at least 30 feet.
Goodman teaches that most well tubulars are fabricated in cylindrical section and are typically thirty feet in length (refer to col. 1, lines 36-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fabricated the first and second well casing pipes of Conrad to be at least 30 feet in length, since it is generally known to fabricate well tubulars with a length of 30 feet, as taught by Goodman (refer to col. 1, lines 36-38).
Claims 5-7, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (U.S. 2020/0217177A1), in view of Chirko et al. (U.S. 2019/0128454A1) as applied to claims 1, and 14 above, and further in view of Colley, III et al. (U.S. 12,264,759B1).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claims 1 and 17 above; however, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al., fail to teach wherein the connection assembly comprises a first flange assembly and a second flange assembly, the first flange assembly comprises a first hub and a first flange, the second flange assembly comprises a second hub and a second flange, and the first and second flanges are configured to couple to one another to establish a seal between the first and second hubs. In other words, Conrad only discloses a generic connection assembly for the casings. It does not show to teach the specific type of connection assembly.
Colley, III et al. teach a connection assembly (51, fig. 7) for mating high pressure first and second flow lines (60, 61, see fig. 7 and refer to abstract). The connection assembly (51) comprises a first flange assembly (71) and a second flange assembly (“pair of flanges 71”; refer to 14, lines 44-45), the first flange assembly comprises a first hub (upper surface of 71, represented as “271” in fig. 12) and a first flange (79; examiner notes that at least one “connector 79” can be considered a “flange” because it is protruding), the second flange assembly comprises a second hub (upper surface of 71) and a second flange (79), and the first and second flanges are configured to couple to one another to establish a seal between the first and second hubs (as shown in fig. 7).
Alternatively, Colley, III et al. teach the connection assembly (51) comprises a first flange assembly (71) and a second flange assembly (“pair of flanges 71”; refer to 14, lines 44-45), the first flange assembly comprises a first hub (79) and a first flange (51), the second flange assembly comprises a second hub (79) and a second flange (71), and the first and second flanges are configured to couple to one another to establish a seal between the first and second hubs (as shown in fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted on type of pipe connection assembly with another (i.e., the generic connection assembly of Conrad with that of Colley, III et al.) to achieve the predictable result of mating high pressure casing pipes.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Conrad, Chirko et al., and Colley, III et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al. and Colley, III et al., further disclose wherein the first flange assembly (71) is formed from a single piece of material (see fig. 7 showing the same cross-hatching across flange 71), the second flange assembly (71) is formed from a single piece of material (see fig. 7 showing the same cross-hatching across flange 71), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Conrad, Chirko et al., and Colley, III et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al. and Colley, III et al., further disclose wherein the first hub (upper surface of 71, represented as “271” in fig. 12) has first interior threads (74) configured to engage first exterior threads (64) at a first longitudinal end of the first wellbore casing (60), the second hub (upper surface of 71, represented as “271” in fig. 12) has second interior threads (74) configured to engage second exterior threads (64) at a second longitudinal end of the second wellbore casing (61; see fig. 7 and refer to col. 14, lines 50-55), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Conrad, Chirko et al., and Colley, III et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al. and Colley, III et al., further disclose wherein the first flange (79; examiner notes that at least one “connector 79” can be considered a “flange” because it is protruding) is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the first flange assembly relative to the first hub (connector 79 is a threaded connector, so it will rotate relative to assembly 71; refer to col. 17, lines 7-10), the second flange is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the second flange assembly relative to the second hub (connector 79 is a threaded connector, so it will rotate relative to assembly 71), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Conrad, Chirko et al., and Colley, III et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al. and Colley, III et al., further disclose (this rejection is based on the alternative interpretation of claim 5) wherein the first flange (51) has first interior threads engaged with first exterior threads of the first hub (“threaded connector 79”), the second flange (71) has second interior threads engaged with second exterior threads of the second hub (“threaded connector 79”), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Conrad and Colley, III et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 5 above; Conrad, as modified by Colley, III et al. further disclose wherein the first hub is welded to a first longitudinal end of the first wellbore casing, the second hub is welded to a second longitudinal end of the second wellbore casing (col. 19, lines 7-10: “welding a flange” instead of threading; “fixed flanges”), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the threaded connection with welded connection, to achieve the predictable result of connecting the pipes.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Conrad and Chirko et al. teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Conrad, as modified by Chirko et al. fail to teach wherein the connection assembly comprises a first hub, a second hub, and a clamp, the first hub has first interior threads configured to engage first exterior threads at a first longitudinal end of the first wellbore casing, the second hub has second interior threads configured to engage second exterior threads at a second longitudinal end of the second wellbore casing, and the clamp is configured to couple the first and second hubs to one another.
Colley, III et al. teach a connection assembly (51, fig. 7) for mating high pressure first and second flow lines (60, 61, see fig. 7 and refer to abstract). The connection assembly comprises a first hub (51), a second hub (71), and a clamp (79), the first hub has first interior threads (74) configured to engage first exterior threads (64) at a first longitudinal end of the first wellbore casing (60), the second hub has second interior threads (74) configured to engage second exterior threads (64) at a second longitudinal end of the second wellbore casing (61), and the clamp (79) is configured to couple the first and second hubs to one another (as shown in fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted on type of pipe connection assembly with another (i.e., the generic connection assembly of Conrad with that of Colley, III et al.) to achieve the predictable result of mating high pressure casing pipes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672