DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 9/14/2026 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 9/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Guzman does not disclose various aspects of the claim because the mapping of the claims is “flawed” in that the component 61 of Guzman is not insertable into element 59. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Guzman does disclose a TBR 59 which element 61 is clearly sitting within (note figure 5B of Guzman includes two structures labeled TBR 59, only one of which includes 61 within) and therefore is insertable as claimed. Applicant additionally argues that the 103 rejections including Bjorgum et al. since Bjorgum et al. include a seal between the disc and the “seat” such that the barrier is not supported in the seat. The examiner again respectfully disagrees since the seat of Bjorgum et al. is considered to “support” the barrier in that it is clearly held in place by the presence of the seat. The examiner also notes that the additional elements of Bjorgum et al. may considered as a portion of the seat, and therefore even if “supporting” requires direct contact (which as currently claimed, it does not), the structure of Bjorgum et al. would remain considered to anticipate this limitation.
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, 4-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 2023/0349260) in view of Bjorgum et al. (US 2019/0032448).
In regard to claim 1, Guzman discloses a tieback liner section for insertion into a liner receptacle in a well (as in fig 5B, with receptacle lower TBR 59, where 61 is within), wherein the tieback liner section comprises: a housing (as in fig 5B, from 64 to 61, as inserted within 59) having an upper end (at 64) and a lower end (below 61 as inserted within 59); wherein the housing comprises a through bore provided in the longitudinal direction of the housing (as within 7, as in paragraph 34); wherein the housing comprises an aperture (19, as in fig 2B, paragraph 34, aperture may also include openings 5 as in fig 2B) extending radially from the bore to an outside of the housing; wherein the lower end is insertable into the liner receptacle (fig 5B vs 5A); wherein the tieback liner section comprises a frangible barrier (43) supported within the bore below the aperture (as in fig 5B); wherein the tieback liner section comprises a barrier section (at 43 in fig 5B) comprising a barrier housing (outer surface where 43 is within string as in fig 5B) forming a subsection of the housing, and wherein the frangible barrier comprises a cylindrical body (as within the bore). Guzman et al. do not disclose wherein the barrier housing comprises a barrier seat for supporting the frangible barrier within the bore or that the body has a chamfered upper edge and a chamfered lower edge, wherein the chamfered upper and lower edges are supported in the barrier seat.
Bjorgum et al. disclose a frangible barrier section including a barrier housing (10 as in fig 1) comprising a barrier seat (as in fig 1) for supporting a frangible barrier (20) within a bore; wherein the frangible barrier (20) comprises a cylindrical body (20 “disc”, paragraph 52) with a chamfered upper edge (as in fig 1) and a chamfered lower edge (as in fig 1), wherein the chamfered upper and lower edges are supported in the barrier seat (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the structure of the frangible barrier (with seat) as taught by Guzman for that of Bjorgum et al. (and including a seat) since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 4, Bjorgum et al. disclose wherein the barrier section comprises a sealing element (60) provided circumferentially outside of the frangible barrier (as in fig 1).
In regard to claim 5, Bjorgum et al. disclose wherein the frangible barrier is made of glass (paragraph 51).
In regard to claim 6, Bjorgum et al. disclose wherein the frangible barrier is made of hardened glass (paragraph 51).
In regard to claim 7, Guzman discloses wherein the frangible barrier is configured to be supported within the bore during a pressure test of the liner section after the liner section has been cemented in place (paragraph 36).
In regard to claim 8, Guzman discloses a system for performing a tieback operation in a well, wherein the system comprises a tieback liner section for insertion into a liner receptacle in a well (as in fig 5B, with receptacle 59), wherein the tieback liner section comprises: a housing (as in fig 5B, from 64 to 61, as inserted within 59) having an upper end (at 64) and a lower end (below 61 as inserted within 59); wherein the housing comprises a through bore provided in the longitudinal direction of the housing (as within 7, as in paragraph 34); wherein the housing comprises an aperture (19, as in fig 2B, paragraph 34, lines 3-25, may also include openings 5 as in fig 2B) extending radially from the bore to an outside of the housing; wherein the lower end is insertable into the liner receptacle (fig 5B vs 5A); wherein the tieback liner section comprises a frangible barrier (43) supported within the bore below the aperture (as in fig 5B); a cement pump (paragraph 34) for pumping a cement slurry into the tieback liner section; a plurality of wipers (paragraph 34, “wiper plugs”) for guiding the cement slurry into the tieback liner section and radially out through the aperture; a removal tool (paragraphs 35, 38, including both the tool of paragraph 38 and drill out string of paragraph 35) for removing the wipers and the frangible barrier when the tieback liner section has been cemented in place in the well; wherein the tieback liner section comprises a barrier section (at 43 in fig 5B) comprising a barrier housing (outer surface where 43 is within string as in fig 5B) forming a subsection of the housing, and wherein the frangible barrier comprises a cylindrical body (as within the bore). Guzman et al. do not disclose wherein the barrier housing comprises a barrier seat for supporting the frangible barrier within the bore or that the body has a chamfered upper edge and a chamfered lower edge, wherein the chamfered upper and lower edges are supported in the barrier seat.
Bjorgum et al. disclose a frangible barrier section including a barrier housing (10 as in fig 1) comprising a barrier seat (as in fig 1) for supporting a frangible barrier (20) within a bore; wherein the frangible barrier (20) comprises a cylindrical body (20 “disc”, paragraph 52) with a chamfered upper edge (as in fig 1) and a chamfered lower edge (as in fig 1), wherein the chamfered upper and lower edges are supported in the barrier seat (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the structure of the frangible barrier (with seat) as taught by Guzman for that of Bjorgum et al. (and including a seat) since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 9, Guzman and Bjorgum et al. disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 8 above, and Guzman includes that a pump is configured to pump a fluid into the tieback liner section above the upper wiper for pushing the upper wiper into the tieback liner section (paragraph 34). Guzman and Bjorgum et al. do not disclose that this pump would necessarily be a distinct pump from the cement pump (as pumping paragraph 34). However, it is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the system of Guzman with a further pump in order to provide additional pumping force to the wiper separate from the cementing, as necessary.
In regard to claim 10, Guzman and Bjorgum et al. disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 8 above, and Guzman includes wherein a further pump is configured to perform a pressure test of the tieback liner section (paragraph 36) above the frangible barrier after the liner has been cemented in the well and before the removal tool has removed the barrier (as before paragraph 38), but does not disclose that this occurs before removal of the wiper (as occurring paragraph 35). However, it is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to configure the further pump of Guzman to perform the pressure test before removal of the wiper, in order to ensure the pressure barrier remains intact for the pressure test (as in S614, of fig 6, paragraph 36), especially if the wiper ending position is more than 10 feet below the cementing pod (where drilling is stopped after 10 feet below cementing pod, as in step S612 of fig 6).
In regard to claim 11, Guzman discloses wherein the removal tool comprises a milling tool (paragraph 35).
In regard to claim 13, Guzman discloses a method for performing a tieback operation in a well, wherein the method comprises the steps of: inserting a tieback liner section (as in fig 5B) into a receptacle (59 in fig 5B) in the well; wherein the tieback liner section comprises: a housing (as in fig 5B, from 64 to 61, as inserted within 59) having an upper end (at 64) and a lower end (below 61 as inserted within 59); wherein the housing comprises a through bore provided in the longitudinal direction of the housing (as within 7, as in paragraph 34); wherein the housing comprises an aperture (19, as in fig 2B, paragraph 34, may also include openings 5 as in fig 2B) extending radially from the bore to an outside of the housing; wherein the lower end is insertable into the liner receptacle (fig 5B vs 5A); wherein the tieback liner section comprises a frangible barrier (43) supported within the bore below the aperture (as in fig 5B); wherein the tieback liner section comprises a barrier section (at 43 in fig 5B) comprising a barrier housing (outer surface where 43 is within string as in fig 5B) forming a subsection of the housing, and wherein the frangible barrier comprises a cylindrical body (as within the bore); pumping a cement slurry into the tieback liner section and out through the aperture of the tieback liner section by means of a wiper (paragraph 34); removing the wiper (paragraph 35) and frangible barrier (paragraph 38) when the tieback liner section has been cemented in place in the well (both occurring after paragraph 34). Guzman et al. do not disclose wherein the barrier housing comprises a barrier seat for supporting the frangible barrier within the bore or that the body has a chamfered upper edge and a chamfered lower edge, wherein the chamfered upper and lower edges are supported in the barrier seat.
Bjorgum et al. disclose a method including a frangible barrier section including a barrier housing (10 as in fig 1) comprising a barrier seat (as in fig 1) for supporting a frangible barrier (20) within a bore; wherein the frangible barrier (20) comprises a cylindrical body (20 “disc”, paragraph 52) with a chamfered upper edge (as in fig 1) and a chamfered lower edge (as in fig 1), wherein the chamfered upper and lower edges are supported in the barrier seat (as in fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the structure of the frangible barrier (with seat) as taught by Guzman for that of Bjorgum et al. since simple substitution of one known element for another
In regard to claim 14, Guzman discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 13 above, and including performing a pressure test of the tieback liner section above the frangible barrier after the liner has been cemented in the well (paragraph 36) and before the removal tool has removed the barrier (as before paragraph 38), but does not disclose that this occurs before removal of the wiper (as occurring paragraph 35). However, it is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Guzman to perform the pressure test before removal of the wiper, in order to ensure the pressure barrier remains intact for the pressure test (as in S614, of fig 6, paragraph 35), especially if the wiper ending position is more than 10 feet below the cementing pod (where drilling is stopped after 10 feet below cementing pod, as in step S612 of fig 6).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman in view Bjorgum et al. and further in view of Ogden et al. (US 4,378,838).
In regard to claim 12, Guzman and Bjorgum et al. disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 8 above, and including wherein the removal tool comprises a disintegration tool (Guzman paragraph 35, wherein drilling out tool is considered disintegration) for disintegrating the frangible wiper element and the frangible barrier (as may be broken paragraph 38). Guzman does not disclose that the wiper comprises a frangible wiper element and a sealing material outside of the frangible wiper element.
Ogden et al. disclose a wiper comprising a frangible wiper element (70/50 as in fig 2, col. 6, lines 1-4) and a sealing material (73) radially outside of the frangible wiper element (as in figs 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to substitute the wiper as disclosed by Guzman as modified by Bjorgum et al., for that of Ogden et al. since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
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 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
9/23/2026
