DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 4/23/2026 has been entered.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims as reciting that magnetic actuation components are located entirely within an isolated chamber, radially offset from the passageway and structurally arranged to permit axial insertion of a retrievable safety valve insert through a first end without mechanical interference distinguish over the prior rejection of Lake et al. in view of Vick, Jr. The examiner respectfully disagrees since Lake et al. do disclose that the magnetic actuation components (46) are located entirely within an isolated chamber (as in fig 5 and col. 3, lines 30-33 ,”fully enclosed”), are radially offset (46 as shown in fig 5) and provide structural arrangement to permit axial insertion of a retrievable safety valve insert through a first end without mechanical interference (as in fig 5, col. 4, lines 62+ where the insert is “landed” within the bore as in fig 5 and no mechanical interference is described or shown). Applicant also argues that “mere depiction” of an insert already positioned within a housing does not teach or suggest a landing nipple architecture designed to permit axial insertion past an actuation system that is radially offset and mechanically non-interfering. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the disclosure of Lake et al. is considered to disclose this limitation as Lake et al. teach the insert is “landed” (i.e. inserted, col. 4, lines 62+) and there is no disclosure which appears to provide any mechanical interference from the actuator or magnetic actuation components. It is further noted that there appears to be no explicit basis in the instant disclosure for such an amendment reciting lack of mechanical interference as now claimed, other than the drawings as being considered to disclose such a limitation. Similarly, the drawings of Lake et al. are also considered to show this limitation. Applicant also argues that that Lake et al. contain “no disclosure of an actuation system fully confined within a radially offset isolated chamber such that axial insertion from a first end occurs without mechanical interference from the actuation components”. The examiner again respectfully disagrees as Lake et al. does appear to teach actuator (48) as being fully confined within the isolated chamber (as shown in fig 5 where 48 is always isolated from bore regardless of position of 54) and magnetic actuation components (46) are also fully confined (as in fig 5, and also col. 3, lines 30-33 ,”fully enclosed”).
Applicant further argues that Vick, Jr. does not disclose or suggest various components, but the rejection relies on Lake et al. to teach these components, and therefore this argument toward the combination of references is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that the proposed Lake et al. and Vick, Jr. combination is based on impermissible hindsight since such a modification would require a “fundamental redesign”. This argument is not persuasive since the substitution of the magnetic actuation components as substituted would be similarly placed (as within the landing nipple, offset and isolated within the chamber of Lake et al.) and the examiner finds no particular “fundamental redesign” required as one of ordinary skill could make such modifications with the teachings of Lake et al. and Vick, Jr. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 19 are objected to because in line 8, line 14 and line 11, respectively, the phrase “a retrievable safety valve maybe inserted” is grammatically awkward and appears intended to recite – a retrievable safety valve may be inserted --.
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(s) 1-11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake et al. (US 7,967,074) in view of Vick, Jr. (US 8,919,730).
In regard to claim 1, Lake et al. disclose a safety valve landing nipple, comprising: a housing (36, fig 2) having a passageway (38) extending from a first end to a second end thereof; an isolated chamber (52) located in the housing; an actuator (48) positioned within the isolated chamber; a width of the first end of the housing sufficient to allow a retrievable safety valve insert to slide within the passageway from the first end (as in fig 5, with insert within housing 36) and one or more landing nipple actuation components (46) configured to be coupled to the retrievable safety valve insert that is configured to be located in the passageway (with 46 as coupled to 94, col. 4, lines 63+); the one or more landing nipple actuation components being located entirely within the isolated chamber (col. 3, lines 30+, “fully enclosed”) and radially offset from the passageway (as in fig 5) such that a retrievable safety valve insert may be inserted axially through the first end of the housing without mechanical interference with the actuator or landing nipple components (as in fig 5 where device as in fig 4 is inserted and no mechanical interference from actuator or actuation components is shown or described). Lake et al. does not disclose that the actuation component is a magnet to couple with a safety valve insert magnet.
Vick, Jr. discloses a safety valve comprising one or more safety valve outer magnets (44) coupled to an actuator (52/54, fig 4), the one or more outer magnets configured to move from a first magnet state to a second magnet state when the actuator moves from a first actuator state to a second actuator state, the one or more outer magnets configured to magnetically coupled to one or more safety valve inner magnets located in the passageway (col. 3, lines 29-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the actuation components of the insert/nipple of Lake et al. with the magnets of Vick, Jr. since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for actuation of a safety valve) to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 2, Vick, Jr. discloses a power spring (70) located in the isolated chamber and coupled to the one or more landing nipple magnets, the power spring configured to return the one or more landing nipple magnets from the second landing nipple magnet state to the first landing nipple magnet state (col. 6, lines 18-23).
In regard to claim 3, Lake et al. disclose a latch profile (40) located in the passageway, the latch profile configured to engage with a landing nipple locking feature (80) of a latch of a retrievable safety valve insert (70) configured to be insert within the housing, the landing nipple locking feature configured to move from a radially retracted state to a radially extended state to engage with the latch profile (as movable radially by 82).
In regard to claim 4, Lake et al. disclose wherein the latch profile is a first latch profile located proximate the first end (40), and further including a second latch profile (44 at opposite end would provide some latching as engaged with seal 93 as shown in fig 5) located proximate the second end. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide a second latch profile (which would be inherently would be more proximate one of the ends compared to the first latch profile) in order to better secure an insert within the landing nipple as a duplication of parts is generally considered an obvious modification unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
In regard to claim 5, Lake et al. disclose a polished bore receptacle (44) located proximate the second end, the polished bore receptacle configured to engage with a seal of a retrievable safety valve insert.
In regard to claim 6, Lake et al. discloses a well system, comprising: a wellbore (10 as in fig 1) extending through one or more subterranean formations; production tubing (22) disposed in the wellbore; a subsurface safety valve (30) disposed in line with the production tubing, the subsurface safety valve (SSSV) including: a safety valve landing nipple, the safety valve landing nipple including: a housing (36, fig 2) having a passageway (38) extending from a first end to a second end thereof; an isolated chamber (52) located in the housing; an actuator (48) positioned within the isolated chamber; a width of the first end of the housing sufficient to allow a retrievable safety valve insert to slide within the passageway from the first end (as in fig 5, with insert within housing 36) and one or more landing nipple actuation components (46) configured to be coupled to the retrievable safety valve insert that is configured to be located in the passageway (with 46 as coupled to 94, col. 4, lines 63+); the one or more landing nipple actuation components being located entirely within the isolated chamber (col. 3, lines 30+, “fully enclosed”) and radially offset from the passageway (as in fig 5) such that a retrievable safety valve insert may be inserted axially through the first end of the housing without mechanical interference with the actuator or landing nipple components (as in fig 5 where device as in fig 4 is inserted and no mechanical interference from actuator or actuation components is shown or described). Lake et al. does not disclose that the actuation component is a magnet to couple with a safety valve insert magnet.
Vick, Jr. discloses a safety valve comprising one or more safety valve outer magnets (44) coupled to an actuator (52/54, fig 4), the one or more outer magnets configured to move from a first magnet state to a second magnet state when the actuator moves from a first actuator state to a second actuator state, the one or more outer magnets configured to magnetically coupled to one or more safety valve inner magnets located in the passageway (col. 3, lines 29-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the actuation components of the insert/nipple of Lake et al. with the magnets of Vick, Jr. since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for actuation of a safety valve) to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 7, Vick, Jr. discloses a power spring (70) located in the isolated chamber and coupled to the one or more landing nipple magnets, the power spring configured to return the one or more landing nipple magnets from the second landing nipple magnet state to the first landing nipple magnet state (col. 6, lines 18-23).
In regard to claim 8, Lake et al. disclose a latch profile (40) located in the passageway, the latch profile configured to engage with a landing nipple locking feature (80) of a latch of a retrievable safety valve insert (70) configured to be insert within the housing, the landing nipple locking feature configured to move from a radially retracted state to a radially extended state to engage with the latch profile (as movable radially by 82).
In regard to claim 9, Lake et al. disclose wherein the latch profile is a first latch profile located proximate the first end (40), and further including a second latch profile (44 at opposite end would provide some latching as engaged with seal as shown in fig 5) located proximate the second end. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide a second latch profile (which would be inherently would be more proximate one of the ends compared to the first latch profile) in order to better secure an insert within the landing nipple as a duplication of parts is generally considered an obvious modification unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
In regard to claim 10, Lake et al. disclose a polished bore receptacle (44) located proximate the second end, the polished bore receptacle configured to engage with a seal of a retrievable safety valve insert.
In regard to claim 11, Lake et al. disclose wherein the retrievable safety valve insert includes: an outer housing (72) including a central bore (74) extending axially through the outer housing, the central bore operable to convey subsurface production fluids there through; a valve closure mechanism (84) coupled to the outer housing proximate a downhole end of the central bore; a bore flow management actuator (104/88) disposed in the central bore, the bore flow management actuator configured to slide to move the valve closure mechanism between a closed state and an open state; and one or more safety valve insert components (94) coupled to the bore flow management actuator, the one or more safety valve actuation components coupled with one or more landing nipple actuation components (46 as in fig 5) of the safety valve landing nipple to slide the bore flow management actuator and move the valve closure mechanism between the closed state and the open state, wherein the width of the first end of the housing is at least as great as a width of the outer housing and a width of the valve closure mechanism (as necessary as in fig 5 with outer housing of insert within housing of landing nipple). Lake et al. do not disclose that the one or more safety valve actuation components are magnets.
Vick, Jr. discloses a safety valve wherein one or more safety valve magnets (48) are coupled to a bore flow management actuator (26), the one or more safety valve magnets configured to magnetically couple with one or more outer magnets (44) to slide the bore flow management actuator and move a valve closure mechanism between a closed state and an open state (col. 3, lines 29-41). Similarly, as combined above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the actuation components of the insert/nipple of Lake et al. with the magnets of Vick, Jr. since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for actuation of a safety valve) to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 19, Lake et al. disclose a method for assembling and operating a subsurface safety valve (SSSV), comprising: positioning a safety valve landing nipple disposed in line with production tubing in a wellbore (as in fig 1), the safety valve landing nipple including: a housing (36, fig 2) having a passageway (38) extending from a first end to a second end thereof; an isolated chamber (52) located in the housing; an actuator (48) positioned within the isolated chamber; a width of the first end of the housing sufficient to allow a retrievable safety valve insert to slide within the passageway from the first end (as in fig 5, with insert within housing 36) and one or more landing nipple actuation components (46) configured to be coupled to the retrievable safety valve insert that is configured to be located in the passageway (with 46 as coupled to 94, col. 4, lines 63+), the one or more landing nipple actuation components being located entirely within the isolated chamber (col. 3, lines 30+, “fully enclosed”) and radially offset from the passageway (as in fig 5) such that a retrievable safety valve insert may be inserted axially through the first end of the housing without mechanical interference with the actuator or landing nipple components (as in fig 5 where device as in fig 4 is inserted and no mechanical interference from actuator or actuation components is shown or described), wherein the width of the first end of the housing is at least as great as a width of an outer housing of the retrievable safety valve insert and a width of the valve closure mechanism (as necessary as in fig 5 with outer housing of insert within housing of landing nipple) of the retrievable safety valve insert.
Vick, Jr. discloses a method for assembling and operating a subsurface safety valve an outer component of the safety valve including one or more safety valve outer magnets (44) coupled to an actuator (52/54, fig 4), the one or more outer magnets configured to move from a first magnet state to a second magnet state when the actuator moves from a first actuator state to a second actuator state, the one or more outer magnets configured to magnetically coupled to one or more safety valve inner magnets located in the passageway (col. 3, lines 29-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the actuation components of the insert/nipple in the method of Lake et al. with the magnets of Vick, Jr. since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for actuation of a safety valve) to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 20, Lake et al. discloses wherein the retrievable safety valve insert includes: an outer housing (72) of the retrievable safety valve insert comprising a central bore (74) extending axially through the outer housing, the central bore operable to convey subsurface production fluids there through; a valve closure mechanism (84) of the retrievable safety valve insert coupled to the outer housing of the retrievable safety valve insert proximate a downhole end of the central bore; a bore flow management actuator (104/88) disposed in the central bore, the bore flow management actuator configured to slide to move the valve closure mechanism between a closed state and an open state; and one or more safety valve insert components (94) coupled to the bore flow management actuator, the one or more safety valve actuation components coupled with one or more landing nipple actuation components (46 as in fig 5) of the safety valve landing nipple to slide the bore flow management actuator and move the valve closure mechanism between the closed state and the open state. Lake et al. do not disclose that the one or more safety valve actuation components are magnets.
Vick, Jr. discloses a safety valve wherein one or more safety valve magnets (48) are coupled to a bore flow management actuator (26), the one or more safety valve magnets configured to magnetically couple with one or more outer magnets (44) to slide the bore flow management actuator and move a valve closure mechanism between a closed state and an open state (col. 3, lines 29-41). Similarly, as combined above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the actuation components of the insert/nipple in the method of Lake et al. with the magnets of Vick, Jr. since choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (for actuation of a safety valve) to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake et al. in view of Vick et al., as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Higgins (US 4,545,434).
In regard to claim 12, Lake et al. and Vick et al. disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 11 above with Lake et al. including the retrievable safety valve insert includes a landing nipple locking feature, the landing nipple locking feature including one or more locking features (80) configured to engage with one or more latch profiles in the safety valve landing nipple (as in fig 5), except for the landing nipple locking feature also including a sliding sleeve.
Higgins discloses a retrievable safety valve insert (as in col. 1, lines 48+) with a landing nipple locking feature including a sliding sleeve (30, as in fig 17A vs 18A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Lake et al. as modified by Vick et al. with the sliding sleeve, as taught by Higgins, in order to provide a running tool which ensures the insert is properly set prior to releasing (Higgins, col. 2, lines 4-8).
In regard to claim 17, Lake et al. disclose wherein the landing nipple locking feature (80) and the bore flow management actuator (104/88) are separate and distinct features.
In regard to claim 18, Lake et al. disclose wherein the one or more locking features are one or more first locking features for removably fixing the landing nipple locking feature to the safety valve landing nipple (80 as in fig 5) and further including one or more second locking features (93) located proximate a downhole end of the retrievable safety valve (as in fig 5) the one or more second locking features configured to engage with one or more second latch profiles in the safety valve landing nipple (44). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide a second locking feature (as similar to first feature 80) configured to engage with a second latch profile (similar to first profile 40) which would be inherently would be more proximate one of the ends compared to the first locking feature) in order to better secure an insert within the landing nipple,+ as a duplication of parts is generally considered an obvious modification unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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 and filings are provided to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection of these claims.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 D Andrews whose telephone number is (571)272-6558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
/D. ANDREWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
5/5/2026
Prosecution Insights