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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 04/24/2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 16, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-15, and 17-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The multiple information disclosure statements have been reconsidered. However, the statements include a number of U.S. patents or U. S. patent application references that appears to have no relevancy to the claimed invention and has not been considered. These inclusions have not been considered as shown on the struck through IDS.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-15, and 17-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 01/27/2026. Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 4-15, and 17-19 have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
Claims 1, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent (US5,638,903) in view of Dubedout et al. (US2007/0132236) and Leng (US8,985,640).
Claim 1. Kent discloses: a wellbore system (mandrel hanger, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a mandrel hanger body (39 tubular body, Fig. 5), comprising:
an associated tool component configured to couple to the mandrel hanger body (37 running tool, 13 mandrel or 11 tieback casing, Fig. 1A).
Kent does not disclose: a recessed portion; a primary sealing surface; a retaining skirt; and a nose including a first nose sealing surface and a second nose sealing surface; wherein the nose is configured to be positioned, at least in part, within the recessed portion such that the primary sealing surface engages the first nose sealing surface to form a first metal to metal seal and the secondary sealing surface engages the second nose sealing surface to form a second metal to metal seal.
Dubedout discloses a tubular joint comprising of multiple seal surfaces and an annular lip for coupling components to each outer.
Dubedout teaches: a recessed portion (LO annular recess, Fig. 11);
a primary sealing surface (DC3 sealing surface, Fig. 12);
a retaining skirt (L2 second annular lip, Fig. 12); and
a nose (L1 fist annular lip, Fig. 10) including a first nose sealing surface (DC4 sealing surface, Fig. 10) and a second nose sealing surface (SB2 sealing surface, Fig 10); wherein the nose is configured to be positioned, at least in part, within the recessed portion (Fig. 12) such that the primary sealing surface engages the first nose sealing surface to form a first metal to metal seal and the secondary sealing surface engages the second nose sealing surface to form a second metal to metal seal (components are steel, [0151]; surfaces creates seals, [0079-0082; 0117-0132]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the sealing joint design of Dubedout for the connections for the mandrel hanger system (tubular body, mandrel running tool, casing tieback) of Kent with a reasonable expectation of success because both perform the same function in similar contexts and to create a metal to metal seal between the components. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Kent in view of Dubedout does not teach: a secondary sealing surface forming at least a part of the recessed portion, the secondary sealing surface having a reverse rake profile that forms a lower surface of the recessed portion.
Leng discloses a tubular joint comprising of multiple seal surfaces utilizing a pressure energized flex-seal surface.
Leng teaches: a secondary sealing surface having a reverse rake profile that forms a lower surface of the recessed portion (83 radially sloping outer region is formed in the lower portion of the recessed portion and is a reverse rake profile, Fig. 9-10; contact between 81 nose and 83 creates a seal; Col. 9, lines 27-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coupling connection of nose pin and box of Kent in view of Dubedout by including the radial sloping seal surface in the recess as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success in order create a second seal as taught by Leng (Col. 9, lines 27-48).
Claim 4. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, wherein the nose is a flexible metallic component that elastically deforms to form the first metal to metal seal and the second metal to metal seal (Dubedout and Leng: interference contact of sealing surfaces during makeup inherently elastically deforms the surfaces, Dubedout [0141-0145]).
Claim 5. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, wherein the retaining skirt is configured to block radial inward collapse of the nose responsive to a radially inward force (Dubedout: L2 would inherently support L1 under a radially inward force, Fig. 12).
Claim 6. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, wherein the first metal to metal seal is configured to resist pressure from a first direction (Dubedout: seals under external pressure, [0084]) and the second metal to metal seal is configured to resist pressure from a second direction (Dubedout: tightness to gases under internal pressure, [0084]; Leng: seal between 81 and 83 resists internal pressure; Col. 9, lines 49-62), the first direction being opposite the second direction (Dubedout: external is opposite of internal).
Claim 7. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, wherein the second nose sealing surface includes at least one of a flat, a bump, or a radius (Leng: 83 surface is flat, Fig. 10 or can have bumps or radii, Fig. 10-15).
Claim 8. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, wherein the recessed portion further comprises a void extending, at least in part, axially lower than the secondary sealing surface (Dubedout: void between surface SI1 and SE2 would be axially lower than modified seal surface of Leng 83 in the recess of Dubedout, Fig. 12).
Claim 9. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, further comprising:
a third metal to metal seal (Dubedout: SI1-SE2 creates a seal, [0083]) formed between a third nose sealing surface (Dubedout: SI1 seal surface, Fig. 10) and
a third sealing surface of the recessed portion (Dubedout: SE2 seal surface, Fig. 11) positioned, at least in part, on the retaining skirt (Dubedout: SE2 is on L2, Fig. 11).
Claim 10. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 1, wherein the associated tool component is at least one of a running tool or a tieback tool (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 11. Kent in view of Dubedout and Leng teach: The wellbore system of claim 10, wherein the nose forms a portion of the running tool and the first metal to metal seal is formed proximate the recessed portion (Kent: 45 piston pin connection of 37 running tool, Fig. 1A; Dubedout: sealing of DC3).
Claim 12. Kent in view of Dubedout teaches: The wellbore system of claim 10, wherein the nose forms a portion of the tieback tool and the first metal to metal seal is formed axially higher than the recessed portion (Kent: pin connection of 13 casing tieback, Fig. ; Dubedout: sealing of DC3).
Claims 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubedout et al. (US2007/0132236) in view of Leng (US8,985,640)
Claim 13. Dubedout discloses: A sealing system (Fig. 10-12), comprising:
a first sealing surface (DC3 sealing surface, Fig. 11) associated with a first wellbore component (box connection of tubular joint, Fig, 11), the first sealing surface arranged along an outer region of the first wellbore component (Fig. 11);
a lower surface of a recess (LO annular recess, Fig. 11) formed in the first wellbore component;
a third sealing surface (DC4 sealing surface, Fig. 10) associated with a second wellbore component (pin connection of tubular joint, Fig. 10), the third sealing surface arranged along an outer diameter of the second wellbore component (Fig. 10); and
a fourth sealing surface (SI1 sealing surface, Fig. 10) associated with the second wellbore component, the fourth sealing surface arranged along a base region of the second wellbore component (SI1 is along the base region, Fig. 12);
wherein the second wellbore component is coupled to the first wellbore component to drive the third sealing surface against the first sealing surface to establish a first seal and to drive the fourth sealing surface against the second sealing surface to establish a second seal ([0079-0082; 0117-0132]), and wherein the first seal is configured to resist a bore pressure (tightness to gases under internal pressure, [0084]) and the second seal is configured to resist a tubing and casing annulus pressure (seals under external pressure, [0084]).
Dubedout does not disclose: a second sealing surface associated with the first wellbore component, the second sealing surface, the second sealing surface, having a reverse rake profile, arranged within and forming a lower surface of a recess; a third sealing surface associated with a second wellbore component, the third sealing surface arranged along an outer diameter of the second wellbore component; a fourth sealing surface associated with the second wellbore component, the fourth sealing surface arranged along a base region of the second wellbore component.
Leng discloses a tubular joint comprising of multiple seal surfaces utilizing a pressure energized flex-seal surface.
Leng teaches: a second sealing surface associated with the first wellbore component (83 sloping outer region in 89 of box connection, Fig. 10), a secondary sealing surface having a reverse rake profile that forms a lower surface of the recessed portion (83 radially sloping outer region is formed in the lower portion of the recessed portion and is a reverse rake profile, Fig. 9-10; contact between 81 nose and 83 creates a seal; Col. 9, lines 27-48); a fourth sealing surface associated with the second wellbore component (sloped surface of 91 nose pin on pin connection, Fig. 10), the fourth sealing surface arranged along a base region of the second wellbore component (91 is along the base of the pin connection, Fig. 10); drive the fourth sealing surface against the second sealing surface to establish a second seal, and wherein the second seal is configured to resist a tubing and casing annulus pressure (creates metal to metal seal; Col. 9, lines 35-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the joint of Dubedout by including the radial sloping seal surface in a recess in the box connection and on the pin nose as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success in order create a second seal as taught by Leng (Col. 9, lines 27-48).
Claim 14. Dubedout in view of Leng teach: The sealing system of claim 13, wherein each of the first seal and the second seal are metal to metal seals (Debedout: components are steel, [0151]; surfaces create seals, [0079-0082; 0117-0132]; Leng: metal to metal seal; Col. 9, lines 35-39).
Claim 15. Dubedout in view of Leng teach: The sealing system of claim 13, wherein the fourth sealing surface includes at least one of a flat, a bump, or a radius (Leng: 83 surface is flat, Fig. 10 or can have bumps or radii, Fig. 10-15).
Claim 17. Dubedout in view of Leng teach: The sealing system of claim 13, further comprising: a void space axially lower than the second sealing surface (Dubedout: void between surface SI1 and SE2 would be axially lower than modified seal surface of Leng 83 in the recess of Dubedout, Fig. 12).
Claim 18. Dubedout discloses: A system for establishing a bi-directional (tightness to gases under internal pressure and seals under external pressure, [0084]) metal to metal seal (components are steel, [0151]; surfaces create seals, [0079-0082; 0117-0132]) between a first downhole component (box connection of tubing joint, Fig. 10) and a second downhole component (pin connection of tubing joint, Fig. 12), comprising:
a first metal to metal seal between the first downhole component and the second downhole component, the first metal to metal seal formed at a first contact location between a first sealing surface along an outer region of the first downhole component and a second sealing surface along an outer diameter of the second downhole component (DC3-DC4 sealing surface, Fig. 12; see previously rejected claim 13) and
wherein each of the first metal to metal seal and the second metal to metal seal are configured to resist pressure from an opposite radial direction (internal and external is opposite, [0084]; see previously rejected claim 13) and a fourth sealing surface along a base region of the second downhole component (SE2-SE1 sealing surface, Fig. 12)
Dubedout does not disclose: a second metal to metal seal between the first downhole component and the second downhole component, the second metal to metal seal formed at a second contact location between a third sealing surface having a reverse rake profile within and forming a bottom area of a recessed portion of the first downhole component.
Leng further teaches: a second metal to metal seal between the first downhole component and the second downhole component (metal to metal seal between pin and box connection, Fig. 10), the second metal to metal seal formed at a second contact location between a third sealing surface having a reverse rake profile within and forming a bottom area of a recessed portion of the first downhole component (83 radially sloping outer region is formed in the lower portion of the recessed portion and is a reverse rake profile, Fig. 9-10; contact between 81 nose and 83 creates a seal; Col. 9, lines 27-48).
Claim 19. Dubedout in view of Leng teach: The system of claim 18, wherein the fourth sealing surface includes at least one of a flat, a bump, or a radius (Leng: 83 surface is flat, Fig. 10 or can have bumps or radii, Fig. 10-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu (US2015/0145247) discloses a metal to metal seal connection for threaded components comprising of an angular profile in a recess between the nose and box connection. Zhu does not disclose a plurality of sealing surfaces.
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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights