DETAILED ACTION
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 with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/17/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,228,164 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman (US 4,591,197) in view of Rumble (US 4,401,324), and further in view of Bergeson et al (US 2017/0267340).
As to claim 1, Akkerman discloses a (wellbore) connection assembly (see col. 6, l. 9 - col. 8, l. 20, and Figs. 6-8) comprising: a first high-pressure portion (14A); a second high-pressure portion (13A); said first high-pressure portion configured to be inserted into said second high-pressure portion such that a mating interface is formed between said first high-pressure portion and said second high-pressure portion (Figs. 6-8); at least one pin (34); a plurality of second grooves (for pins 34, Figs. 6-8) disposed within said second high-pressure portion.
Akkerman fails to teach that said first high-pressure portion comprising a plurality of first grooves and said second high-pressure portion comprising a plurality of second grooves such that a respective one of said plurality of first grooves and a respective one of said plurality of second grooves can align to form a plurality of respective openings, each of said plurality of respective openings having a respective primary axis that passes tangentially through said mating interface.
However, Rumble teaches a pipe fitting assembly (Fig. 4) based having a similar locking mechanism, comprising a first portion (24) and a second portion (20), each of the first and second portions having a cooperating groove (25; 22/23) which align to form an opening for receiving a fastener (26) to secure the first and second portions together. Hagiya teaches that there is a groove on the male pipe that correspond with a groove in the fitting.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akkerman so as to include cooperating grooves on the male first portion, as taught by Rumble, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate assembly of Akkerman while also providing better securement of the pipes.
Akkerman fails to teach that the fasteners are formed from a material having a yield strength of at least 20 thousand pounds per square inch ("KSI"). Though it should be understood that Akkerman’s pins are of a high strength material, given Akkerman’s device is directed to downhole, wellbore tubulars.
However, Bergeson et al teaches a high-strength steel or titanium shear bolt for use in high pressure applications, the shear bolt being threaded and fastened by a threaded nut within a cylindrical bore. The shear bolt can withstand and maintain tensile loads of 25-140 KSI. Refer to paragraphs [0033] - [0037].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akkerman/Rumble to include a high-strength steel or titanium shear bolt having a yield strength of at least 20 thousand pounds per square inch, that is threaded and fastened by a threaded nut, as taught by Bergeson et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reliably and safely perform in a high-pressure application and environment.
As to claim 2, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein said plurality of respective openings comprises at least two respective openings and wherein each of said at least two respective openings are respectively positioned such that a respective primary axis of each of said plurality of openings passes tangentially through said mating interface of said first high-pressure portion and said second high-pressure portion.
As to claim 3, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1 wherein said plurality of pins comprise dimensions that allow them to be at least partially disposed within said respective opening.
As to claim 4, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1, further comprising at least one structure (110, 112 of Bergeson) to prevent said plurality of pins from passing completely through said respective opening.
As to claim 5, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 4, wherein said structure comprises a threaded fastener (110, 112, Bergeson).
As to claim 6, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 5, wherein said plurality of pins comprise threads disposed on at least one end portion thereof (104, Bergeson).
As to claim 10, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein said plurality of pins comprise steel having a yield strength of at least 45 KSI (see Bergeson).
As to claim 11, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein said plurality of pins are not formed from a plastic material (steel or titanium, see Bergeson).
As to claim 12, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein said plurality of pins are not formed from aluminum (steel or titanium, see Bergeson).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman in view of Rumble, further in view of Bergeson et al, and still further in view of Ichiryu (US 7,198,465).
As to claim 7, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 5, except that said plurality of respective openings comprises threads disposed therein.
However, Ichiryu teaches a fastening arrangement for a split casing for a well, the fastening arrangement including tangential fastening bolts (5) that secure an upper casing half to a lower casing half. The fastening bolts pass through bolt holes in the upper casing and the screw threads at the bolt ends are screwed into threaded holes in the lower casing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al, such that said at least one opening disposed within said second high-pressure portion comprises threads disposed therein, as taught by Ichiryu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to eliminate the need for additional fasteners, such as nuts.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman in view of Rumble, further in view of Bergeson et al, and still further in view of Victor (US 2005/0241819).
As to claim 8, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 1 except that said connection assembly comprises at least a portion of a plunger lift lubricator.
As to claim 9, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the connection assembly of claim 8 except that said first portion comprises an upper body of said plunger lift lubricator and wherein said second portion comprises a lower body of said plunger lift lubricator.
However, Victor teaches a plunger lift system (100) comprising a lubricator assembly (10) and used to increase the productivity of oil and gas wells. The plunger is disposed within a well casing, as shown in Fig. 1. An upper lubricating body end (440) mates with a lower lubricating body end (sheath 441) via pins (4011) and holes (4010) in the body end (440). Viktor states that other design choices can be used. Refer to paragraph [0061].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the connection assembly of Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al, in a plunger lift lubricator system, like in Viktor, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a temporary securement means in a plunger lift lubricator.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman (US 4,591,197) in view of Rumble (US 4,401,324).
As to claim 13, Akkerman discloses a method for creating a high-pressure connection (see 6: 9 - 8: 20, and Figs. 6-8) between a first (14A) and a second portion (13A) of a connection assembly comprising: providing the first portion of the connection assembly; providing the second portion of the connection assembly; inserting the first portion of the connection assembly into an opening within the second portion of the connection assembly (Figs. 6-8); the plurality of openings each having a respective primary axis that passes tangentially through a mating interface of the first portion of the connection assembly and the second portion of the connection assembly ; and inserting each of a plurality of pins (34) into a respective one of the plurality of openings such that the plurality of pins are each positioned with its primary axis tangential to the mating interface interfacing surfaces of the first portion of the connection assembly and the second portion of the connection assembly (Figs. 6-8).
Akkerman fails to teach a plurality of first grooves in the first portion, and therefore fails to teach aligning a plurality of first grooves of the first portion of the connection assembly with a respective plurality of second grooves of the second portion of the connection assembly to form a plurality of openings.
However, Rumble teaches a pipe fitting assembly (Fig. 4) based having a similar locking mechanism, comprising a first portion (24) and a second portion (20), each of the first and second portions having a cooperating groove (25; 22/23) which align to form an opening for receiving a fastener (26) to secure the first and second portions together. Hagiya teaches that there is a groove on the male pipe that correspond with a groove in the fitting.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akkerman so as to include cooperating grooves on the male first portion, as taught by Rumble, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate assembly of Akkerman while also providing better securement of the pipes.
As to claim 14, Akkerman/Rumble discloses the method of claim 13 further comprising securing at least one of the plurality of pins such that it does not slide out of its respective opening of the second high-pressure portion. Refer to Figs. 6-8 in Akkerman and Figs. 1-4 of Rumble.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman (US 4,591,197) in view of Rumble (US 4,401,324), and further in view of Bergeson et al.
As to claim 14, Akkerman/Rumble discloses the method of claim 13 except for further comprising securing at least one of the plurality of pins such that it does not slide out of its respective opening of the second high-pressure portion., and
As to claim 15, Akkerman/Rumble discloses the method of claim 14, except that securing the at least one of the plurality of pins comprises securing the at least one of the plurality of pins with a threaded fastener, and
As to claim 17, Akkerman/Rumble discloses the method of claim 13, except that inserting at least one pin comprises inserting at least one pin having a yield strength of at least 45 KSI.
However, Bergeson et al teaches a high-strength steel or titanium shear bolt for use in high pressure applications, the shear bolt being threaded and fastened by a threaded nut within a cylindrical bore. The shear bolt can withstand and maintain tensile loads of 25-140 KSI. Refer to paragraphs [0033] - [0037].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akkerman/Rumble to include a high-strength steel or titanium shear bolt having a yield strength of at least 45 KSI, that is threaded and fastened by a threaded nut, as taught by Bergeson et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reliably and safely perform in a high-pressure application and environment.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman in view of Rumble, further in view of Bergeson et al, and still further in view of Victor (US 2005/0241819).
As to claim 18, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the method of claim 13, except for providing the first portion comprises providing an upper body of a plunger lift lubricator, and wherein providing the second portion comprises providing a lower body of the plunger lift lubricator.
However, Victor teaches a plunger lift system (100) comprising a lubricator assembly (10) and used to increase the productivity of oil and gas wells. The plunger is disposed within a well casing, as shown in Fig. 1. An upper lubricating body end (440) mates with a lower lubricating body end (sheath 441) via pins (4011) and holes (4010) in the body end (440). Viktor states that other design choices can be used. Refer to paragraph [0061].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the connection assembly of Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al, in a plunger lift lubricator system, like in Viktor, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a temporary securement means in a plunger lift lubricator.
As to claim 19, Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al discloses the method of claim 13 except for providing the first portion comprises providing a first portion configured to withstand at least 5,000 pounds per square inch gauge pressure.
However, Victor teaches a plunger lift system (100) comprising a lubricator assembly (10) and used to increase the productivity of oil and gas wells. The plunger is disposed within a well casing, as shown in Fig. 1. An upper lubricating body end (440) mates with a lower lubricating body end (sheath 441) via pins (4011) and holes (4010) in the body end (440). Viktor states that other design choices can be used. Refer to paragraph [0061].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the connection assembly of Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al, in a plunger lift lubricator system, like in Viktor, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a temporary securement means in a plunger lift lubricator.
In the instance this is not inherent to Viktor:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Akkerman/Rumble/Bergeson et al such that providing a first high-pressure portion comprises providing a first portion configured to withstand at least 5,000 pounds per square inch gauge pressure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (high-pressure environment), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yodoshi discloses recesses (51) formed on a male pipe (1) via tangential screws (48).
Pringle discloses a mechanism for anchoring a well tool including a tangential pin (20), as shown in Fig. 6.
Hagiya discloses a pipe fitting that uses tangential fasteners to secure a pipe.
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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights