DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed 6/18/2025 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a wiper” in line 14, and later recites “the wipers” in line 16. Therefore it is unclear if this claim would require more than one wiper and is indefinite.
Claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “the upper wiper” and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “the liner” and is therefore indefinite, and also recites “the wipers” similarly to claim 8 above.
Claim 12 lacks antecedent basis for “the lower wiper” and is therefore indefinite. Claim 12 also recites “wherein the lower wiper and/or the lower wiper” which is indefinite as it appears one of the “lower wiper” should be something else.
Claim 11 is indefinite as being dependent from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Guzman (US 2023/0349260).
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 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, 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).
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 wiper (paragraph 34) 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.
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); 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).
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) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman in view of Bjorgum et al. (US 2019/0032448).
In regard to claim 2, Guzman discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied above, and including 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, but does not disclose wherein the barrier housing comprises a barrier seat for supporting the frangible barrier within the bore.
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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art substitute the frangible barrier as taught by Guzman for that of Bjorgum et al. 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 3, Bjorgum et al. disclose 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).
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).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman alone.
In regard to claim 9, Guzman discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 8 above, and 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 does 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 discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 8 above, and 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 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 of Ogden et al. (US 4,378,838).
In regard to claim 12, Guzman discloses all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 8 above, and including wherein the removal tool comprises a disintegration tool (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 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
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
6/15/2026
Prosecution Insights