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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0183247) in view of Frazier (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0279700) and Galle, Sr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,494,499).
In reference to claim 1, Santos discloses a float valve assembly 100 comprising:
a) a tubular sub member 55 configured to be conveyed into a wellbore in a tubular string 200, said tubular sub member 55 having a central through bore 57;
b) a first float valve 30 disposed within said central through bore 57 of said tubular sub member 55; and
c) a second float valve 10 disposed within said central through bore 57 of said tubular sub member 55, wherein said second float valve 10 comprises at least one seal member 12 disposed along an external surface of said second float valve 10 (Fig. 4), and wherein said at least one seal member 12 is configured to form a fluid pressure seal against an inner surface of said tubular sub member 55 (Fig. 5).
Santos fails to disclose the tubular sub member comprising internal connection threads disposed within said central through bore; wherein said first float valve comprises external threads configured to engage in mating relationship with said internal connection threads of said tubular sub member.
Frazier discloses a tubular sub member 608 comprising internal connection threads 625 disposed within a central bore 655; wherein a float valve 400 (Fig. 4A) comprises external threads 105 configured to engage in mating relationship with said internal connection threads 625 of said tubular sub member 608 (Fig. 6D). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the first float valve to the tubular sub member with a threaded connection with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to attach a float valve to a tubular sub member.
Santos and Frazier fail to disclose that said internal threads of said tubular sub member and said external threads of said first float valve cooperate to form a fluid pressure seal.
Galle discloses a threaded connection (Fig. 1) that forms a metal-to-metal seal 25/45 (col. 2, lines 57-61). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal-to-metal seal with the threads with a reasonable expectation of success so that a more effective seal can be formed.
In reference to claim 3, Santos discloses that said at least one seal member 12 comprises a plurality of seal members 17 and 18 oriented in perpendicular relationship to the longitudinal axis of said central through bore 57 of said tubular sub member 55 (Figs. 4 and 5).
In reference to claim 10, Santos discloses a float valve assembly 100 comprising:
a) a tubular sub member 55 configured to be conveyed into a wellbore in a tubular string 200, said tubular sub member 55 having a central through bore 57; and
b) a first float valve 30 disposed within said central through bore 57 of said tubular sub member 55.
Santos fails to disclose the tubular sub member comprising internal connection threads disposed within said central through bore; wherein said first float valve comprises external threads configured to engage in mating relationship with said internal connection threads of said tubular sub member, wherein said internal threads of said tubular sub member, and wherein said internal threads of said tubular sub member and said external threads of said first float valve cooperate to form a fluid pressure seal.
Frazier discloses a tubular sub member 608 comprising internal connection threads 625 disposed within a central bore 655; wherein a float valve 400 (Fig. 4A) comprises external threads 105 configured to engage in mating relationship with said internal connection threads 625 of said tubular sub member 608 (Fig. 6D). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the first float valve to the tubular sub member with a threaded connection with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to attach a float valve to a tubular sub member.
Galle discloses a threaded connection (Fig. 1) that forms a metal-to-metal seal 25/45 (col. 2, lines 57-61). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal-to-metal seal with the threads with a reasonable expectation of success so that a more effective seal can be formed.
In reference to claim 11, Santos discloses a second float valve 10 disposed within said central through bore 57 of said tubular sub member 55, wherein said second float valve 10 comprises at least one seal member 12 disposed along an external surface of said second float valve 10 (Fig. 4), and wherein said at least one seal member 12 is configured to form a fluid pressure seal against an inner surface of said tubular sub member 55 (Fig. 5).
In reference to claim 12, Santos discloses that said at least one seal 12 member comprises a plurality of seal members 17 and 18 oriented in perpendicular relationship to the longitudinal axis of said central through bore 57 of said tubular sub member 55 (Fig. 4).
Claims 4-6, 9, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0183247) in view of Frazier (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0279700) and Galle, Sr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,494,499) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of MacGregor et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0002993).
In reference to claim 4, Santos discloses that said first float valve 30 comprises:
a) a housing 31 defining an inner space 35, a flow port (Fig. 4, within seat 49) and a seat 49 disposed around said flow port;
b) a dart member 39 comprising a dart shaft 45 and a dart head 44; and
c) a spring 42 configured to bias said dart head 44 against said seat 49 and form a fluid pressure seal across said flow port, wherein said dart head 44 is configured to be at least partially displaced from said seat 49 when a predetermined fluid pressure acts on said dart head 44 and opposes said bias force applied by said spring 42 (Fig. 4).
Santos fails to disclose a metal-to-metal seal between the dart head and the seat.
MacGregor discloses a valve 10 comprising a head 20b and seat 16 (Figs. 1 and 2, par. 0057) that form a metal-to-metal seal (par. 0021). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal-to-metal seal between the dart head and valve seat with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of known equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to form a seal between a valve member and a valve seat.
In reference to claim 5, Santos discloses that said dart head 44 is substantially conical (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 6, Santos discloses that said seat 49 is substantially circular (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 9, Santos discloses at least one adapter member 51 or 52 disposed between said first float valve 30 and said second float valve 10 (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 13, Santos discloses said first float valve 30 comprises:
a) a housing 31 defining an inner space 35, a flow port (Fig. 4, within seat 49) and a seat 49 disposed around said flow port (Fig. 4);
b) a dart member 39 comprising a dart shaft 45 and a dart head 44 (Fig. 4); and
c) a spring 42 configured to bias said dart head 44 against said seat 49 and form a fluid pressure seal across said flow port (Fig. 4), wherein said dart head 44 is configured to be at least partially displaced from said seat 49 when a predetermined fluid pressure acts on said dart head 44 and opposes said bias force applied by said spring 42 (Fig. 4).
Santos fails to disclose a metal-to-metal seal between the dart head and the seat.
MacGregor discloses a valve 10 comprising a head 20b and seat 16 (Figs. 1 and 2, par. 0057) that form a metal-to-metal seal (par. 0021). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a metal-to-metal seal between the dart head and valve seat with a reasonable expectation of success as it amounts to a substitution of known equivalents to perform the same function, which is in this case to form a seal between a valve member and a valve seat.
In reference to claim 14, Santos discloses that said dart head 44 is substantially conical (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 15, Santos discloses that said seat 49 is substantially circular (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 18, Santos discloses at least one adapter member 51 or 52 disposed between said first float valve 30 and said second float valve 10 (Fig. 4).
Claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0183247) in view of Frazier (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0279700), Galle, Sr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,494,499) and MacGregor et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0002993) as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of LeJeune (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0192608).
In reference to claim 7, Santos fails to disclose that said dart shaft has three sides.
LeJeune discloses a dart 21 with a shaft 25 having three sides (Fig. 6, par. 0050). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the shaft so that it has three sides with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cross-sectional area of the stem is reduced to allow for greater flow.
In reference to claim 8, Santos fails to disclose a baffle strainer member 46 operationally attached to said housing, wherein said baffle strainer member is configured to filter out solid materials from passing through said flow port.
LeJeune discloses a baffle strainer member operationally attached to said housing 11, wherein said baffle strainer member 46 is configured to filter out solid materials from passing through said flow port (Figs. 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a baffle strainer with a reasonable expectation of success so that debris can be filtered out before it passes through the flow port.
In reference to claim 16, Santos fails to disclose that said dart shaft has three sides.
LeJeune discloses a dart 21 with a shaft 25 having three sides (Fig. 6, par. 0050). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the shaft so that it has three sides with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cross-sectional area of the stem is reduced to allow for greater flow.
In reference to claim 17, Santos fails to disclose a baffle strainer member 46 operationally attached to said housing, wherein said baffle strainer member is configured to filter out solid materials from passing through said flow port.
LeJeune discloses a baffle strainer member operationally attached to said housing 11, wherein said baffle strainer member 46 is configured to filter out solid materials from passing through said flow port (Figs. 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a baffle strainer with a reasonable expectation of success so that debris can be filtered out before it passes through the flow port.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 should not be rejected under Santos in view of Frazier and Galle as Santos teaches away from having a threaded connection. The examiner finds this unpersuasive and does not consider Santos to teach away from the combination. Santos teaches a different means of attaching the float valves than threaded connections, but this does not constitute teaching away as at no point does Santos disclose that a threaded connection would unworkable or undesirable (see MPEP 2145, “a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.”). The substitution known connection means for downhole components amounts to a substitution of equivalents that does not affect the function of the float valves.
Applicant also argues that Galle is not a proper reference in this matter as Galle neither discloses nor teaches a connection of metal-to-metal seal that is formed between the inner surface of a through bore and an object disposed within that bore. The examiner finds this unpersuasive as Galle is relied upon only for a threaded connection that forms a metal-to-metal seal (col. 2, lines 57-61). The other limitations, such as an object secured within the through bore are clearly disclosed by the other references.
Applicant’s arguments have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. 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.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
6/04/26
Prosecution Insights