DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 11/19/2025 have been entered.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley (US 4924941) and Steinkamp (US 4991649).
Regarding claim 1, Farley discloses a packer system for use in wells, which consisting of; a packer unit (64, 100) (figs 1-5), a settling device (col 10 line 51-68 discloses a hydraulic running and setting tool), to settle the packer unit in the well (col 10 line 51-68), and a retriever device to recover the packer unit from the well (col 11 lines 17-48 discloses overshot tool), thereby converting a production pipe system in an insertable production system (see figs 1-9, the system is an insertable system due to the fact that the setting and retrieving devices are inserted and lifted out of the well in order to interact with the packer), where the packer unit settles due to the effect of a hydraulic pressure that induces a mechanical displacement towards packer's mobile components by means of the settling device (figs 6-9, col 10 lines 51-68 discloses that hydraulic running and setting tool mechanically indues the mechanical displacement shown between figs 2-5 and figs 6-9).
Farley is silent regarding the fact that the retriever device comprising: a fishing connector comprising :a hollow cylinder with three radial surface regions, each of the three radial regions with different diameters, oriented from down to up.
Steinkamp teaches the fact that the retriever device (1) comprising: a fishing connector (1) comprising :a hollow cylinder with three radial surface regions, each of the three radial regions with different diameters, oriented from down to up (fig 1 shows retriever 1 with increasing outer diameter from bottom up)
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Farley and Steinkamp before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Farley to include the retriever as taught by Steinkamp in order to allow the delivery of a jet of liquid proximate the milling head (col 2 lines 15-20).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlee et al. (US 20100101807) and Farley (US 4924941)
Regarding claim 16, Greenlee discloses a packer system for use in a well, comprising: a packer unit (110) (fig 3 ); a settling device (112) configured to settle the packer unit in a well (fig 3); wherein the packer unit comprises a first mandrel (104) (fig 3), a release connection element (150) (fig 3), a lower safety retainer (114) (fig 3), a first breakout pin set (152) (fig 3), and a second breakout pin set (116); wherein the first breakout pin set joins the release connection element to the first mandrel (fig 3); wherein the second breakout pin set joins the lower safety retainer to the first mandrel (fig 5); wherein the first breakout pin set and the second breakout pin set are arranged as distinct groups of pins around the first mandrel in different angular patterns (fig 3); and wherein the second breakout pin set is sized to shear under a setting load and the first breakout pin set is sized to shear under a retrieval load ([0042]).
Greenlee is silent regarding a retriever device configured to recover the packer unit from the well, thereby converting a production pipe system in an insertable production system, where the packer unit is configured to settle due to a hydraulic pressure that induces a mechanical displacement towards mobile components of the packer unit by means of the settling device.
Farley teaches a retriever device to recover the packer unit from the well (col 11 lines 17-48 discloses overshot tool), thereby converting a production pipe system in an insertable production system (see figs 1-9, the system is an insertable system due to the fact that the setting and retrieving devices are inserted and lifted out of the well in order to interact with the packer), where the packer unit is configured to settle due to a hydraulic pressure that induces a mechanical displacement towards mobile components of the packer unit by means of the settling device (figs 6-9, col 10 lines 51-68 discloses that hydraulic running and setting tool mechanically indues the mechanical displacement shown between figs 2-5 and figs 6-9).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Farley and Greenlee before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Greenlee to include the retriever as taught by Farley in order to retrieve the packer to surface (col 11 lines 45-50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 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
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 DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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 on 5712729855. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
03/04/2026
Prosecution Insights