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 and 10 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 the limitation "the pressure actuated latch actuator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pressure actuated locking actuator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lock retainer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baugh (US 4067062).
CLAIM 1: Baugh discloses a tool (R) for recovering a casing hanger from a wellhead, the tool comprises a tool body (201) having a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 5). A pressure operated locking assembly (310) configured to move in response to the supply of fluid to the tool (fluid into passage G). A pressure operated latch assembly (201) configured to move in response to the supply of fluid to the tool (through line F). A retainer (316) is configured to prevent movement of either the pressure operated locking assembly or the pressure operated latch assembly (the dogs of the locking assembly) until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool reaches a pre-determined level.
CLAIM 2: The tool further comprises: (i) a latch retainer which engages with the pressure operated latch assembly to prevent movement of the pressure operated latch assembly until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool exceeds a predetermined level;(ii) a lock retainer which engages with the pressure operated locking assembly to prevent movement of the pressure operated locking assembly until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool exceeds a predetermined level; or (iii) a lock retainer which engages with the pressure operated locking assembly to prevent movement of the pressure operated locking assembly until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool exceeds a first predetermined level and a latch retainer which engages with the pressure operated latch assembly to prevent movement of the pressure operated latch assembly until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool exceeds a second predetermined level which is higher than the first predetermined level (option ii being disclosed as discussed above in claim 1).
CLAIM 5: The pressure operated latch assembly comprises a latch (230) and a pressure actuated latch actuator, the latch being movable relative to the tool body by movement of the pressure actuated latch actuator in response to the supply of fluid to the tool (see Fig. 5, col. 9, lines 10-23).
CLAIM 6: The latch retainer engages with the pressure actuated latch actuator to prevent movement of the pressure actuated latch actuator relative to the tool body until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool exceeds a predetermined level (this is an embodiment not elected as Claim 1 indicates it is an alternative to have the retainer interact with the latch assembly).
CLAIM 7: The latch is configured to move radially outwardly relative to the tool body from a contracted configuration to an expanded configuration (see Figs. 3, 4).
CLAIM 8: The tool further comprises: (i) the pressure actuated latch actuator comprises a sleeve mounted around the tool body and movable relative to the tool body generally parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool body in response to the supply of fluid to the tool;(ii) the pressure actuated locking actuator comprises a sleeve mounted around the tool body and movable relative to the tool body generally parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool body in response to the supply of fluid to the tool; or (iii) the pressure actuated locking actuator and pressure actuated latch actuator each comprise a sleeve mounted on the tool body and movable relative to the tool body generally parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof in response to the supply of fluid to an actuation chamber formed between the pressure actuated locking actuator, the pressure actuated latch actuator and the tool body, such movement of the pressure actuated locking actuator and pressure actuated latch actuator moving the locking element and latch, respectively (option i disclosed by sliding sleeve as discussed in claim 1).
CLAIM 9: The pressure operated locking assembly comprises at least one locking element and a pressure actuated locking actuator, the locking element engaging with the pressure actuated locking actuator and being movable relative to the tool body by movement of the pressure actuated locking actuator in response to the supply of pressurized fluid to the tool (the dogs being activated).
CLAIM 10: The lock retainer engages with the pressure actuated locking actuator to prevent movement of the pressure actuated locking actuator relative to the tool body until the pressure of the fluid supplied to the tool exceeds a predetermined level (the dogs being activated).
CLAIM 11: The pressure operated locking assembly comprises a plurality of locking elements (the dogs) and a pressure actuated locking actuator (see above), the locking elements engaging with the pressure actuated locking actuator and being movable relative to the tool body by movement of the pressure actuated locking actuator in response to the supply of fluid to the tool (the actuation via the fluid pressure).
CLAIM 12: Each locking element is movable radially outwardly of the tool body by the pressure actuated locking actuator in response to the supply of fluid to the tool (the movement of the dogs).
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) 14, 16-20, 22, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baugh.
CLAIM 14: Baugh fails to disclose the pressure operated locking assembly and pressure operated latch assembly move in response to the supply of fluid to a common pressure supply port.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number and placement of ports in the system to have a single port as the reorganization of parts with a reasonable expectation of success to minimize the points of failure related to individual ports.
CLAIM 16: Baugh fails to disclose a cutting apparatus which is configured to be inserted into a main passage of a tubular having a longitudinal axis and which is operable to cut through the tubular in a plane generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis thereof.
Examiner takes official notice that cutters are well known in the art as a means of separating tubulars in a bore; further that pressure activated cutters are known.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baugh to include a well known cutter as combination of known prior art elements with a reasonable expectation of success as tubing hanger of Baugh is used to position tubulars and separating them would assist.
CLAIM 17: This tool is disclosed above (see claims 1 and 16).
CLAIM 18: See claim 16 above.
CLAIM 19: See claim 14 above.
CLAIM 20: See claim 5 above.
CLAIM 22: See claim 8 above.
CLAIMS 24-26: These methods are inherent to the above structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows similar known hanger tools in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights