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 .
The filings of 3/17/26 are acknowledged; the claims filed 9/30/24 are still pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 4836289) in view of Garza et al. (US 10604851).
CLAIM 1: Young discloses a wellhead corrosion resistant system. The system comprises a connection assembly disposed to concatenate a first riser pipe to a second riser pipe above ground in a wellhead toolstring (see col. 4, line 56 – col. 5, line 4 discussing sections of the lubricator acting as riser sections); the connection assembly including an o-ring housing such that the o-ring housing is disposed to be interposed between the first riser pipe and the second riser pipe when the connection assembly concatenates the first riser pipe to the second riser pipe (see Fig. 3 showing housing for o-ring 44). Wherein the first riser pipe has a first riser internal surface (see Fig. 3), the o-ring housing has a housing internal surface (see Fig. 3) and the second riser pipe has a second internal surface (see Fig. 3). Wherein the first riser internal surface, the housing internal surface and the second riser internal surface are contiguous when the connection assembly concatenates the first riser pipe to the second riser pipe (see Fig. 3). Wherein the first riser internal surface presents a metal having a pitting resistance equivalent number designated as PREN1 (this limitation defines itself); wherein the second riser internal surface presents a metal having a pitting resistance equivalent number designated as PREN2 (this limitation defines itself); wherein the housing internal surface presents a metal having a pitting resistance equivalent number designated as PRENH (this limitation defines itself). Wherein [PRENH – PREN1] is in a range between about -5 and +∞; and wherein [PRENH – PREN2] is in a range between about -5 and +∞ (the metals are all the same, so both equations would equal 0).
Young fails to disclose an anode assembly including at least one sacrificial anode, wherein the at least one sacrificial anode acts as a corrosion inhibitor for at least one wellhead tool in the wellhead toolstring when the anode assembly is also positioned above ground in the wellhead toolstring.
Garza discloses a system to protect steel structures.
Garza discloses a pipe (15) connected to another element with a sacrificial anode (20) that acts as a corrosion inhibitor for the element and is placed above ground (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Young to include the sacrificial anode of Garza with a reasonable expectation of success as Garza teaches that the anode acts as a corrosion inhibitor and protects the system from degradation.
CLAIM 11: See the discussion of claim 1 above; the “presented” metals are what the riser pipes and housing are made of.
CLAIMS 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14: The combination does not disclose wherein which the first riser internal surface, second riser internal surface, or housing internal surface presents a metal selected from the group consisting of: (a) 28 Chrome; (b) Inconel 718; (c) L80; and (d) P110; instead Garza teaches generic steel.
Applicant admits that 28 Chrome is well known in the art for use in riser pipes and the like (see Specification, paragraph 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the Combination to be made of 28 Chrome with a reasonable expectation of success as it is a known material resistant to corrosion in common drilling situations.
CLAIMS 5 and 15: Garza teaches at least one sacrificial anode are a zinc-aluminum alloy (see claim 11).
CLAIMS 6 and 16: The connection assembly further includes a male union and a female union, wherein connection of the male union to the female union enables the o-ring housing to be interposed between the first riser pipe and the second riser pipe when the connection assembly concatenates the first riser pipe to the second riser pipe (see Young, Fig. 3).
CLAIMS 7 and 17: Young-Garza fails to disclose the connection assembly further includes a nut, wherein threading of the nut over the female union enables connection of the male union to the female union.
Examiner takes official notice that nuts are well known in the art as a connection means.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection means to include a well known nut with a reasonable expectation of success as nuts are known in the art as a means to secure elements together which result in more solid connections between the parts.
CLAIMS 8 and 18: The anode assembly is a first anode assembly, and in which the wellhead corrosion resistant system further includes a second anode assembly, wherein the second anode assembly disposed to be positioned also above ground in the wellhead toolstring such that at least one wellhead tool in the wellhead toolstring is interposed between the first anode assembly and the second anode assembly (see Garza, Col. 2 “installation of anodes” teaching a plurality of anodes).
CLAIMS 9 and 19: Garza teaches the anode assembly further includes a removable internal anode housing (25) to which at least one of the sacrificial anodes is secured, wherein the anode housing also includes a plurality of slots, wherein the slots are configured to encourage fluid flow around the anode housing (the “cage” for the anode).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 4836289) in view of Garza et al. (US 10604851) in view of Eastland (US 4716960).
Young-Garza discloses the elements of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Young-Garza fails to disclose an isolator assembly disposed to be positioned also above ground in the wellhead toolstring such that the isolator assembly isolates electrically an uphole portion of the wellhead toolstring from a downhole portion of the wellhead toolstring; wherein the isolator assembly is configured to isolate at least one wellhead tool in the wellhead toolstring electrically from the downhole portion of the wellhead toolstring when the at least one wellhead tool in the wellhead toolstring is positioned in the uphole portion of the wellhead toolstring between the anode assembly and the isolator assembly.
Eastland discloses a system for introducing electric current into a wellbore.
Eastland discloses placing a non-conducting fiberglass section to isolate the electric flow.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an isolator with a reasonable expectation of success as Eastland teaches that the non-conducting elements can control the unwanted spread of electricity to undesired zones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant attempts to traverse the rejection because “the instant specification describes embodiments where a first riser, a second riser and intervening housing are not the same materials” (Remarks, page 2). Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (see MPEP 2111). However, it is improper to import claim limitations from the Specification (see MPEP 2111.01(II)). Applicant’s argument attempts to bring in the limitation of “different materials” from the embodiment described in the Specification. The language of claim 1 has no requirements that the risers and housings be made of different materials. Therefore, it would be improper to import that limitation into the analysis.
Applicant further argues that even if the elements were made of the same material, they would have different PREN values. Applicant points to embodiments in their Specification that would support this. However, they offer no support that the teachings of the prior art would be similar. On the contrary, it is expected that similar compounds similar in structure will have similar properties (see MPEP 2144.09(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have no expectation that two risers made from the same material would have different PREN values. They would reasonably expect the PRN values to be the same, and thus the difference would be zero. At best, Applicant’s cited sections of the Specification support the idea that the claim language includes parts made of the same material, and thus the prior art reads on the claimed language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights