DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicants reply filed on December 2, 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
In response to the applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 7 to correct minor informalities, the objections of claims 23 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Claims 3 and 7 have been amended, Claim 9 is newly added. Claims 1-9 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants have argued that Vinegar et al., US 2003/0164240 (hereinafter Vinegar) in view of Baker, US, 1,767,198 (hereinafter Baker) fails to disclose the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant has argued that Vinegar fails to disclose “a gas lift mandrel comprising a centralizing ring”. Specifically, Applicant argues that the side pocket mandrel of Vinegar does not comprise a centralizing ring and there is no reason that the Vinegar side-pocket mandrel would have a centralizing ring. The Examiner disagrees. As clearly shown in Figure 4A, Vinegar does disclose a side-pocket mandrel (gas lift mandrel 54) comprising a centralizing ring (bow spring centralizers 60) and the centralizing ring (54) is clearly used to center the gas lift mandrel (54).
First, the Applicant has argued that the bow spring centralizer (60) of Vinegar is not part of the side pocket mandrel (54). While the Examiner agrees that the bow spring centralizer of Vinegar is not directly attached to the side pocket mandrel (54), there are no limitation sin the claim which require that the centralizing ring be directly attached to the gas lift mandrel. As the bow spring centralizer (60) of Vinegar is used in conjunction with the side pocket mandrel (54), the side pocket mandrel can be considered to comprise the bow spring centralizer.
Second, the Applicant has argued that the bow spring centralizers of Vinegar are not centralizing rings due to their shape like a bow (arc), However, as shown in Figures 3 and 4a, the bow spring centralizers crest a ring around the tubing string 26 and are therefore a centralizing ring. As there are no limitations in the claims which provide further details are to what a “centralizing ring” requires, the bow spring centralizers of Vinegar clearly meet the limitations of claim 1. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Third, the Applicant has argued that the Examiner has not explained how the bow spring centralizer is the equivalent of a centralizing ring nor how the centralizing ring is part of the side pocket mandrel. However, these aspect of the bow spring centralizer and side pocket mandrel are clearly shown in the cited Figures of 3 and 4a. Clearly the bow spring centralizer 60 forms a ring around the tubing string 36 creating a “centralizing ring” to centralize the side pocket mandrel 54 (see Fig 3 and 4a). The claims do not require that the centralizing ring be formed directly on the gas lift mandrel.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the centralizing ring formed as part of the side pocket mandrel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has further argued that the Examiner has not provided an analysis or explanation as to why the radial ribs 15 as disclosed by Baker are a ring guide. However, as indicated in the cited passages and shown clearly in the cited figures, the radial ribs 15 are used to guide the ring in a centralized position (see Fig 1-3, pg 1, ln 68-83). As such the Examiner has provided sufficient analysis or explanation as to the radial ribs 15 as a ring guide. Applicant contends that the radial ribs 15 as disclosed by Baker are not a ring guide. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Additionally, Applicant has argued that the modification of the bow spring centralizer of Vinegar with the centralizing ring (circular member 14) and a ring guide (radial ribs 15) of Baker would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as the Examiner has not proved any basis for the suggested modification other than to achieve the benefit of the Applicant’s claimed invention to centralize a gas lift mandrel. The Examiner disagrees as Vinegar has already proved a basis for the suggested modification, that of centralizing the tubing string 26 and hence the gas lift mandrel 54. Choosing an appropriate type of centering device is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art in that it requires simply replacing one centering device with another centering device. In this situation both the bow spring centralizer 60 of Vinegar and the centralizing ring (circular member 14) with ring guide (radial ribs 15) of Baker are disposed on the outside of tubulars (i.e. tubing string, casing). Applicant has further argued that the radial ribs 15 of Baker are screwed into the Baker casing and one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to drill holes in the tubing string of Vinegar. However, the radial ribs requiring screws are merely part of the installation of the radial ribs of Baker and therefore in order to install said radial ribs one of ordinary skill would drill holes. Furter, the bow spring centralizer of Vinegar would not be duplicated by the centralizing ring (circular member 14) and a ring guide (radial ribs 15) of Baker as the centralizing ring and ring guide are being substitute for bow spring centralizer Vinegar. Regarding the purpose of electrically isolating the casing from the tubing string in Vinegar, there is nothing in Baker that suggests that the screws would be conductive of electricity and nothing would prevent the centralizing ring (circular member 14) and a ring guide (radial ribs 15) of Baker from being electrically isolated in a similar manner to Vinegar by using insulators.
For these reasons, it is the Examiner’s position that Vinegar as muddied by Baker clearly discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant has argued that claim 2 requires that the ring guide is on an exterior surface of a tubular mandrel body
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinegar et al., US 2003/0164240 (hereinafter Vinegar) in view of Baker, US, 1,767,198 (hereinafter Baker).
Claim 1: Vinegar discloses a gas lift mandrel (side pocket mandrel 54) comprising a centralizing ring (spring centralizer 60) (see Fig 3-4A).
Vinegar fails to discloses the a ring guide.
Baker discloses a centering device including a centralizing ring (circular member 14) and a ring guide (radial ribs 15) (see Fig 1-3, pg 1, ln 68-83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the centralizing ring of Vinegar with the centralizing ring and ring guide as disclosed by Baker, as the need to centralize the gas lift mandrel would have lead one skilled in the art to choose an appropriate centralizer, such as the centralizing ring and ring guide as disclosed by Baker. Therefore, choosing the appropriate centralizer as disclosed by Baker would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain the predictable result of centering the gas lift mandrel within the wellbore (Baker, pg 1, ln 29-32), id. at 301,213 USPQ at 536. in re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.. 496 F.3d 1374, 83 USPG2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim 2: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses wherein the ring guide (Baker, 15) is lengthwise on an exterior surface of a tubular mandrel body (Vinegar, bow spring centralizer 60 is disposed lengthwise on the tubular string 26 attached directly to the side pocket mandrel 54 as shown in Fig 4A, Baker, well casing 11 passes through radial ribs 15 such that radial ribs 15 are on the exterior of the well tubing 11, see Fig 1-2).
Claim 3: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses wherein the ring guide (Baker, 15) is partially enclosed within the centralizing ring (Baker, 14) (Baker, as shown in Fig 2).
Claim 4: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses wherein the ring guide (Baker, 15) has an interior volume (Baker, passageways 16) (Baker, see Fig 2, pg 1, ln 75-83).
Claim 5: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses further comprising a second centralizing ring and a second ring guide (Vinegar, centralizers 60 located above and below the gas lift mandrel see Fig 3, Baker, 14, 15, see Fig 2-3).
Claim 6: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses the second ring guide comprises two elongated angled flanges (radial ribs 15 are elongated and angles as shown in Fig 3).
Claim 7: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses wherein the second ring guide (ribs 15) is partially enclosed within the second centralizing ring (Baker, ribs 15 are located within the circular member 14, see Fig 2-3).
Claim 8: Vinegar, as modified by Baker, discloses the two elongated angled flanges (15) of the second ring guide form a volume (Baker, passageways 16) (Baker, see Fig 2, pg 1, ln 75-83).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 is allowable over the closest prior as cited above.
Regarding claim 9, Vinegar discloses a gas lift mandrel in which in which the valve housing is included as part of the tubing string (see Fig 4a). One of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to modify the valve housing of Vinegar to use the volume formed by the flanges of Baker as the volume between the ribs 15 of Baker are angled with respect to the vertical axis of the tubing string and would not allow for a valve to be installed properly.
Vinegar and Baker, fails to suggest alone, or in combination, the limitations of “wherein the volume is a valve housing” as recited in claim 9.
The Examiner is unare of prior art which reasonably suggests alone or in combination the limations of claim 9.
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
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 CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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 E 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676