DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-19, and 21 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 .
Response to Arguments
The most recent 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection(s) have been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the claim amendments focused towards the functional language of seating the “well penetrator” in the “blowout preventor” while the pump reaches a depth is broad in nature and does not require the claim to be read in the way Applicant’s representative is narrowly interpreting. Examiner notes that, in keeping with the instant specification, one skilled in the art could interpret functional language to be met in a series of chorological events, rather than it happening simultaneously. Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language in light of the specification (i.e., structural and/or functional) to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution, preferably towards an allowance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] after [[the ]]seating the pump with the packer and the seating the well penetrator in the blowout preventer, closing the blowout preventer about the electrical cable.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-11, 16-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoines et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0295998 A1; herein “Hoines”) in view of Cochran (US Publication Number 2018/0320454 A1; herein “Cochran”).
In regard to claim 1, Hoines discloses: A method for deploying a pump (comprising 202 system) in a well (210 — abstract and paragraphs [0004, 0010, 0027] and figure 2), comprising:
attaching a well closure device (236) above a surface control valve (at least 224), the surface control valve connected to close a well tubing (214A) extending from a well control valve (at least 216) to a predetermined depth in the well (figure 2 and paragraphs [0027-0034]);
moving an annular seal (i.e., “packer” associated with 202) and downhole control valve (204) to a selected pump setting depth (i.e., arbitrary well depth) in the well tubing (paragraphs [0034, 0053]), the downhole control valve operable to close the well tubing to fluid flow (paragraphs [0027-0030, 0039, 0045-0049]);
deploying the pump coupled at a second end (i.e., lower end) of the electrical cable (212) through the well closure device and the well tubing until the pump engages (i.e., functionally engages) the downhole control valve or the annular seal (paragraphs [0034, 0052-0061] and figure 2);
terminating the electrical cable at a surface end of the electrical cable to define a terminated end (i.e., termination of 212 at arbitrary location above surface 210A — paragraph [0031]); and
wherein the well closure device disposed above a Christmas tree (228 — see figure 2 and paragraph [0039, 0050-0059]).
However, Hoines is silent in regard to: “[...] coupling a well penetrator to a first end of an electrical cable, the first end comprising a surface end;
[...]
wherein the coupling the well penetrator to the first end of the electrical cable comprises terminating the electrical cable at the surface end of the electrical cable within an interior of the well penetrator between first and second axial ends of the well penetrator such that the well penetrator seats in the well closure device upon the pump engaging the downhole control valve or the annular seal at the selected pump setting depth; and
after the well penetrator seats in the well closure device, closing the well closure device about the electrical cable.
Nonetheless, Cochran teaches a wellhead assembly (16) comprising a “well closure device”, e.g., a BOP (24) which has a downhole electrical pump (32) passing therethrough (at least abstract and paragraphs [0144, 0153-0156] and figures 20-24), similar to that of Hoines. Cochran teaches terminating the coiled tubing (18) electrical cable (64) at a surface end of the electrical cable to define a terminated end (i.e., terminated end section of “64” where “74” couples thereto, as shown in figures 17-23) within an interior of a well penetrator (68 | “FIG. 20 shows a telescoping wellhead penetrator 68 disposed over the exposed end of the electrical cable 64 and inserted into the rod lock BOP 24” — paragraph [0153]) between first and second axial ends of the well penetrator (paragraphs [0153-0156] and figures 17-26 | Examiner notes that teachings of the limitation is commensurate to that disclosed in the paragraphs [0030-0031] and figure 3B of the instant specification); and
seating the well penetrator in the well closure device (“FIG. 20 shows a telescoping wellhead penetrator 68 disposed over the exposed end of the electrical cable 64 and inserted into the rod lock BOP 24” — paragraph [0153]).
Furthermore, Examiner notes that, in light of broadest reasonable interpretation in keeping with the instant specification (e.g., at least paragraph [0030]), Cochran teaches for the well penetrator to seat in the rod lock BOP when (i.e., once, after, etc.) the pump deployment depth is reached (as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0138, 0147-0156]).
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 wellhead assembly, as taught by Hoines, to include for terminating the electrical cable at a surface end thereof within a well penetrator, such that the well penetrator seats in the well closure device when the assembly reaches a selected wellbore depth, as taught by Cochran, to allow for telescopically selectively moving (raising or lowering) the electrical downhole cable (paragraph [0153] — Cochran).
In regard to claim 2, Hoines further discloses: wherein the annular seal and the well control valve are deployed on the pump such that the well control valve, the annular seal and the pump are deployed in the well in a single operation (paragraphs [0034, 0048]).
In regard to claim 3, Hoines further discloses: electrically connecting a first end of the electrical cable to a surface power and control system (paragraph [0056]).
In regard to claim 4, Hoines in view of Cochran discloses claim 1 above.
However, the modification of Hoines in view of Cochran is silent In regard to: wherein the electrical cable comprises a tubing encapsulated cable.
Nonetheless, Cochran cites: “[...] electrical cable may comprise a tubing encapsulated electrical cable” (paragraphs [0019, 0158]).
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 electrical cable, as taught by Hoines, with that of Cochran, as “[...] advantages of using TEC are resistance to damage of the electrical cable by reason of fluid flowing through the coiled tubing when the ESP system is operating” (paragraph [0158] of Cochran).
In regard to claim 5, Hoines further discloses: wherein the pump comprises an electric submersible pump (paragraph [0033]).
In regard to claim 6, Hoines further discloses: wherein the well comprises a bore lining tubular (i.e., “casing”) extending at least between the selected pump setting depth and a permeable formation, an interior of the bore lining tubular being in fluid communication with the permeable formation (paragraphs [0020-0022, 0028, 0031, 0054]).
In regard to claim 7, Hoines further discloses: wherein the surface control valve forms part of a valve assembly (i.e., of 200) comprising at least a valve spool (206), a swab valve (222) coupled to the valve spool to enable insertion of devices into the well tubing (paragraph [0027, 0035-0038, 0052, 0054] and figure 2) and a flow line valve (i.e., “wing valve” associated with lateral outlet 208) coupled to the valve spool to control the fluid flow from the well tubing to a flow line (208) extending from the flow line valve (paragraph [0035]).
In regard to claim 8, in view the modification of the preceding claim, Hoines further discloses: wherein the well closure device comprises a blowout preventor (at least paragraphs [0050, 0052-0053]).
In regard to claim 9, Hoines further discloses: wherein the Christmas tree comprises one or more master valves (i.e., of 208 — paragraphs [0035, 0039]).
In regard to claim 10, Hoines further discloses: wherein the Christmas tree comprises a wing valve disposed on a branch (208 — paragraphs [0035, 0039]).
In regard to claim 11, Hoines further discloses: wherein the Christmas tree comprises a swab valve (222 — paragraphs [0036, 0038]).
In regard to claim 16, Hoines discloses: A method (abstract and paragraphs [0004, 0010, 0027]), comprising:
an electrical cable (212);
deploying a pump (comprising 202 system) at a second end of the electrical cable through each of a blowout preventer (236), a Christmas tree (228), and a well tubing (214A) until the pump reaches a depth in the well tubing (paragraphs [0052-0061] and figure 1), wherein the Christmas tree comprises one or more master valves (i.e., of 208 — paragraphs [0035, 0039]), one or more wing valves (208 — paragraphs [0035, 0039]), and a swab valve (222 — paragraphs [0036, 0038]), and wherein the second end of the electrical cable is opposite the first end (i.e., as shown in figure 1);
seating the pump with a packer at the depth (at least paragraph [0034]).
However, Hoines is silent in regard to: “[...] coupling a well penetrator to a first end of an electrical cable, the first end comprising a surface end;
seating the well penetrator in the blowout preventer when the pump reaches the depth, wherein the second end of the electrical cable is terminated within an interior of the well penetrator between first and second axial ends of the well penetrator;
wherein the coupling the well penetrator to the first end of the electrical cable comprises terminating the first end of the electrical cable with the well penetrator such that the well penetrator seats in the blowout preventer when the pump reaches the depth, and wherein the electrical cable extends a length between the first end disposed within the well penetrator to the second end at the pump disposed at the depth; and
after [[the ]]seating the pump with the packer and the seating the well penetrator in the blowout preventer, closing the blowout preventer about the electrical cable.
Nonetheless, Cochran teaches a wellhead assembly (16) comprising a “well closure device”, e.g., a BOP (24) which has a downhole electrical pump (32) passing therethrough (at least abstract and paragraphs [0144, 0153-0156] and figures 20-24), similar to that of Hoines. Cochran teaches terminating the coiled tubing (18) electrical cable (64) at a surface end of the electrical cable to define a terminated end (i.e., terminated end section of “64” where “74” couples thereto, as shown in figures 17-23) within an interior of a well penetrator (68 | “FIG. 20 shows a telescoping wellhead penetrator 68 disposed over the exposed end of the electrical cable 64 and inserted into the rod lock BOP 24” — paragraph [0153]) between first and second axial ends of the well penetrator (paragraphs [0153-0156] and figures 17-26 | Examiner notes that teachings of the limitation is commensurate to that disclosed in the paragraphs [0030-0031] and figure 3B of the instant specification); and
seating the well penetrator in the well closure device (“FIG. 20 shows a telescoping wellhead penetrator 68 disposed over the exposed end of the electrical cable 64 and inserted into the rod lock BOP 24” — paragraph [0153]).
Furthermore, Examiner notes that, in light of broadest reasonable interpretation in keeping with the instant specification (e.g., at least paragraph [0030]), Cochran teaches for the well penetrator to seat in the rod lock BOP when (i.e., once, after, etc.) the pump deployment depth is reached (as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0138, 0147-0156]).
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 wellhead assembly, as taught by Hoines, to include for terminating the electrical cable at a surface end thereof within a well penetrator, such that the well penetrator seats in the well closure device when the assembly reaches a selected wellbore depth, as taught by Cochran, to allow for telescopically selectively moving (raising or lowering) the electrical downhole cable (paragraph [0153] — Cochran).
In regard to claim 17, Hoines further discloses: wherein the deploying the pump comprises simultaneously deploying the pump and the packer (at least paragraph [0034]).
In regard to claim 21, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Hoines further discloses: wherein the electrical cable (as taught by both Hoines and Cochran) extends a length between the first end disposed within the well penetrator to the second end at the pump (as taught by Cochran | see claim 1 rejection herein).
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoines et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0295998 A1; herein “Hoines”) in view of Cochran (US Publication Number 2018/0320454 A1; herein “Cochran”) in further view of Head et al. (US Publication Number 2019/0017357 A1; herein “Head”).
In regard to claim 13, Hoines discloses: wherein: the deploying the pump comprises lowering the pump through the downhole control valve, the lowering of the pump through the downhole control valve configured to cause an opening of the downhole control valve (at least paragraphs [0045-0046, 0059-0061]).
However, Hoines in view of Cochran is/are silent in regard to: wherein:
the deploying the pump comprises lowering the pump through the downhole control valve until the pump seats in the annular seal; and
the annular seal comprises a packer.
Nonetheless, Head teaches a similar type of the electrical downhole pumping assembly comprising a motor, to that of Hoines (see at least paragraph [0033] of Hoines), where the pump (50) in Head is seated on an “annular seal”/packer (2) — see at least paragraphs [0019-0021] of Head. Head teaches that the “annular seal” (2) is positioned in the wellbore along with the production tubing (4) prior to deploying the pump in the wellbore at the selected pump depth (paragraphs [0019-0021] 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 simply substitute the method/mechanism of coupling/activating the pump and “annular seal” with one another in the wellbore, as taught by Hoines, with the method/mechanism, as taught by Head, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative downhole pump/packer method/mechanism with the benefit of having retrievable pumping assembly components, when needed, such as, but not limited to, times of failure, without altering the set packer (paragraphs [0003-0004] of Head). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 15, Hoines teaches that the “downhole control valve” is set prior to deploying the pump in the tubing (at least paragraphs [0045-0046]).
However, Hoines in view of Cochran is/are silent in regard to: wherein moving the annular seal and downhole control valve to the selected pump setting depth in the well tubing comprises deploying the annular seal and the downhole control valve separately from and prior to deploying the pump.
Nonetheless, Head teaches a similar type of the electrical downhole pumping assembly comprising a motor, to that of Hoines (see at least paragraph [0033] of Hoines), where the pump (50) in Head is coupled to an “annular seal” (2) — see at least paragraphs [0019-0021] of Head. Head teaches that the “annular seal” (2) is positioned in the wellbore along with the production tubing (4) prior to deploying the pump in the wellbore at the selected pump depth (paragraphs [0019-0021] 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 simply substitute the method/mechanism of coupling/activating the pump and “annular seal” with one another in the wellbore, as taught by Hoines, with the method/mechanism, as taught by Head, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative downhole pump/packer method/mechanism with the benefit of having retrievable pumping assembly components, when needed, such as, but not limited to, times of failure, without altering the set packer (paragraphs [0003-0004] of Head). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 18, Hoines in view of Cochran teaches the previously claim.
However, Hoines in view of Cochran is/are silent in regard to: wherein the deploying the pump comprises deploying the pump after separately deploying the packer to the depth.
Nonetheless, Head teaches a similar type of the electrical downhole pumping assembly comprising a motor, to that of Hoines (see at least paragraph [0033] of Hoines), where the pump (50) in Head is seated to a packer (2) — see at least paragraphs [0019-0021] of Head. Head teaches that the packer (2) is positioned in the wellbore along with the production tubing (4) prior to deploying the pump in the wellbore at the selected pump depth (paragraphs [0019-0021] 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 simply substitute the method/mechanism of coupling/activating the pump and packer with one another in the wellbore, as taught by Hoines, with the method/mechanism, as taught by Head, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative downhole pump/packer method/mechanism with the benefit of having retrievable pumping assembly components, when needed, such as, but not limited to, times of failure, without altering the set packer (paragraphs [0003-0004] of Head). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 19, Hoines in view of Cochran teaches the previously claim. Hoines discloses: wherein the deploying the pump comprises lowering the pump through the downhole control valve, the lowering of the pump through the downhole control valve configured to cause an opening of the downhole control valve (at least paragraphs [0045-0046, 0059-0061]).
However, Hoines in view of Cochran is/are silent in regard to: wherein the deploying the pump comprises lowering the pump through a downhole control valve until the pump seats with the packer.
Nonetheless, Head teaches a similar type of the electrical downhole pumping assembly comprising a motor, to that of Hoines (see at least paragraph [0033] of Hoines), where the pump (50) in Head is seated to a packer (2) — see at least paragraphs [0019-0021] of Head. Head teaches that the packer (2) is positioned in the wellbore along with the production tubing (4) prior to deploying the pump in the wellbore at the selected pump depth (paragraphs [0019-0021] 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 simply substitute the method/mechanism of coupling/activating the pump and packer with one another in the wellbore, as taught by Hoines, with the method/mechanism, as taught by Head, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative downhole pump/packer method/mechanism with the benefit of having retrievable pumping assembly components, when needed, such as, but not limited to, times of failure, without altering the set packer (paragraphs [0003-0004] of Head). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
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 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