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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 06/12/2025. Claims 1—5 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of US Patent Application Number 18/347,873 filed on 07/06/2022, which claims priority to US Provisional Patent Application Number 63/358,729, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 02/09/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because FIGs. 6—9 depict excessively shaded figures which do not comply with the drawing style requirements for patent figures. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “lower collet retaining shoulder.” Examiner notes that while the Specification includes a generic description of this feature, the feature is not numerically labelled in either of the Specification or the drawings. Examiner further notes that FIG. 2 may be modified to depict the lower collet retaining shoulder between element 38 (e.g., collet 38) and element 24 (e.g., mandrel 24). The Specification should additionally be amended to include the reference label used to modify FIG. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1—5 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the packers are each configured with a sliding sleeve to be selectively actuated,” however, based on the figures and the specification, it is unclear what sliding sleeve claim 1 is referring to. For example, while the depictions of the packer apparatus (e.g., FIGs. 2, 5, and 7) include the elements of: “a push sleeve 28”; “an outer shift sleeve 32”; and “an inner shift sleeve 34,” the packer apparatus does not include any feature which is labelled “a sliding sleeve.” Furthermore, claim 2, which depends from claim 1, explicitly recites the foregoing sleeve features (e.g., “a push sleeve 28”; “an outer shift sleeve 32”; and “an inner shift sleeve 34”) without any connection to the recited sliding sleeve of claim 1. Examiner notes that while, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “sliding sleeve” of claim 1 could be one, or any combination, of “a push sleeve 28”; “an outer shift sleeve 32”; and “an inner shift sleeve 34,” the application does not disclose a packer with a sliding sleeve which is separate from the foregoing push and/or shift sleeve. Moreover, sliding sleeves are generally understood in the art to be sleeves which specifically occlude and/or expose a flow port, not merely a push and/or shift sleeve used to apply force to a packer sealing element. Accordingly claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite due to the recitation of the claim element “a sliding sleeve.” Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the packers are each configured with a sliding sleeve to be selectively actuated,” however, based on the figures and the specification, it is unclear what sliding sleeve claim 1 is referring to. For example, while the depictions of the packer apparatus (e.g., FIGs. 2, 5, and 7) include the elements of: “a push sleeve 28”; “an outer shift sleeve 32”; and “an inner shift sleeve 34,” the packer apparatus does not include any feature which is labelled “a sliding sleeve.” Furthermore, claim 4, which depends from claim 3, explicitly recites the foregoing sleeve features (e.g., “a push sleeve 28”; “an outer shift sleeve 32”; and “an inner shift sleeve 34”) without any connection to the recited sliding sleeve of claim 3. Examiner notes that while, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “sliding sleeve” of claim 3 could be one, or any combination, of “a push sleeve 28”; “an outer shift sleeve 32”; and “an inner shift sleeve 34,” the application does not disclose a packer with a sliding sleeve which is separate from the foregoing push and/or shift sleeve. Moreover, sliding sleeves are generally understood in the art to be sleeves which specifically occlude and/or expose one or more flow ports, not merely a push and/or shift sleeve used to apply force to a packer sealing element. Accordingly claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite due to the recitation of the claim element “a sliding sleeve.” Claims 4—5 depend from claim 3 and is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Issued US Patent Application to Hutchinson et al., hereinafter “Hutchinson,” (US 4099563 A) in view of Issued US Patent Application to Current (US 3645335 A) and Published US Patent Application to Hueston et al., hereinafter “Hueston” (US 20170284171 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hutchinson discloses [a] steam injection tubing string (see FIG. 1 including steam deflectors (e.g., 20/21), packer cup assembly (e.g., 22/24), and liner (e.g., 18/19)), comprising a plurality of alternating packers (packer cup assembly (e.g., 22/24)) and steam diverters (steam deflectors (e.g., 20/21)),
wherein the packers are each configured with a sliding sleeve to… isolate an annular space between the tubing string and a liner (Col 2, Line 64—Col 3, Line 9 “[t]he preferred packer cup such as indicated by the numeral 24 for example comprises a mandrel section connectable into a tubing string 19… A frangible annularly extending backup ring having an outer diameter of less than the outer diameter of the sealing element has a central opening slidably engageable over the mandrel section. Stop means are provided on the mandrel section abutting against the frangible backup ring to maintain the packer cup in a predetermined position on the mandrel section.”) , and
wherein the steam diverters (steam deflector 20) are configured with a sliding sleeve (sliding sleeve section 38) to be selectively actuated to permit passage of steam through an opening in the tubing string to the annular space (Col 3, Lines 38—42, “means are provided for selectively operating the steam deflector to divert steam flow out of the steam deflector into the well liner-tubing string annulus in a direction concentric with and substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubing string.”).
While Hutchinson discloses a configuration of packers with a sliding sleeve alternating with selectively actuated sliding sleeve valves which may be used for steam injection, Hutchinson may not disclose:
“wherein the packers are each configured with a sliding sleeve to be selectively actuated,” and
“wherein each packer and each steam diverter may be actuated by the same position shifting tool.”
Regarding item 1, Current, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a selectively settable packer, teaches the deficient limitations. For example. Current teaches “since the prime purpose of a packer of the type described in this invention when used in tandem installations is to provide means to set and test the lowermost packer first and then set and test the second lowermost packer, etc., up the hole, a shifting tool such as an Otis Model B retractable shifting tool assembly may be utilized and provided with means to allow the tool to be initially passed downwardly through the upper packers without shifting the sliding sleeves downward but upon manipulation of the shifting tool lowering in means will activate the shifting tool into the downwardly shifting configuration. In this case, should one of the lowermost packers not set properly, the shifting tool may be withdrawn from the tubing string without disturbing the packer setting port sliding sleeves in the upper packers.” (Current, Col 2, Line 72— Col 3, Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cup-style packers of Hutchinson with a packer which is selectively actuatable such as that of Current. Both types of packers were known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as set forth in the discloses of Hutchinson and Current where the substitution would create the predictable result of providing for a packer which is selectively actuatable among a string of packers.
Regarding item 2 Hutchinson as modified by Current teach a packer which is operated by an Otis Model B shifting tool and a sliding sleeve which is operated by a dropped ball. Accordingly, Hutchinson modified by Current may not teach “wherein each packer and each steam diverter may be actuated by the same position shifting tool.” However, Hueston, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to steam injection operations for hydrocarbon production, teaches the deficient limitation. Specifically, Hueston teaches a plurality of sliding sleeves which may be selectively operated using an OTIS style B-shifting tool. For example, Hueston teaches “multiple devices are screwed onto the liner, spaced appropriately and run vertically downhole into the horizontal leg of the well. The device is run in the CLOSED position, meaning the Sleeve is stroked downwards so that a series of windows misalign with the recess of the Body, hence no flow through from the upper and lower ports. The operator then goes downhole with a 3 ½ B OTIS style B Shifting Tool and selectively opens the device; the tool stabs into the Sleeve and user pulls back on the coil tubing, thereby rendering OPEN the Sleeve.” (Hueston, para. [0022]). Examiner notes that both the packer of Current, which is used to replace the packers of Hutchinson, and the sliding sleeve of Hueston, which is used to replace the sliding sleeve of Hutchinson, utilize an OTIS Model B positioning/shifting device to actuate the respective sleeves and packers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the sliding sleeve of Hutchinson with the sliding sleeve of Hueston. Both types of sliding sleeves were known in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as set forth in the disclosures of Hutchinson and Hueston where the substitution would create the predictable result of providing for a sliding sleeve which is selectively actuatable among a string of sliding sleeves.
Regarding claim 3, Hutchinson discloses [a] method of creating at least two steam injection zones (see FIG. 1 including steam deflectors (e.g., 20/21), packer cup assembly (e.g., 22/24), and liner (e.g., 18/19)), comprising the steps of:
(a) installing a steam injection tubing string (see FIG. 1 referenced above, the steam injection tubing string is installed in a wellbore), comprising a plurality of alternating packers (packer cup assembly (e.g., 22/24)) and steam diverters (steam deflectors (e.g., 20/21)), wherein the packers (packer cup assembly (e.g., 22/24)) are each configured with a sliding sleeve to… isolate an annular space between the tubing string and a liner (Col 2, Line 64—Col 3, Line 9 “[t]he preferred packer cup such as indicated by the numeral 24 for example comprises a mandrel section connectable into a tubing string 19… A frangible annularly extending backup ring having an outer diameter of less than the outer diameter of the sealing element has a central opening slidably engageable over the mandrel section. Stop means are provided on the mandrel section abutting against the frangible backup ring to maintain the packer cup in a predetermined position on the mandrel section.”), and wherein the steam diverters (steam deflector 20) are configured with a sliding sleeve (sliding sleeve section 38) to be selectively actuated to permit passage of steam through an opening in the tubing string to the annular space (Col 3, Lines 38—42, “means are provided for selectively operating the steam deflector to divert steam flow out of the steam deflector into the well liner-tubing string annulus in a direction concentric with and substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubing string.”).
While Hutchinson discloses a configuration of packers with a sliding sleeve alternating with selectively actuated sliding sleeve valves which may be used for steam injection, Hutchinson may not disclose:
“wherein the packers are each configured with a sliding sleeve to be selectively actuated,”
“wherein each packer and each steam diverter may be actuated by the same position shifting tool,” and
“actuating the packers and steam diverters in one or more trips with a position shifting tool.”
Regarding the first limitation, Current, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a selectively settable packer, teaches the deficient limitations. For example. Current teaches “since the prime purpose of a packer of the type described in this invention when used in tandem installations is to provide means to set and test the lowermost packer first and then set and test the second lowermost packer, etc., up the hole, a shifting tool such as an Otis Model B retractable shifting tool assembly may be utilized and provided with means to allow the tool to be initially passed downwardly through the upper packers without shifting the sliding sleeves downward but upon manipulation of the shifting tool lowering in means will activate the shifting tool into the downwardly shifting configuration. In this case, should one of the lowermost packers not set properly, the shifting tool may be withdrawn from the tubing string without disturbing the packer setting port sliding sleeves in the upper packers.” (Current, Col 2, Line 72— Col 3, Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the cup-style packers of Hutchinson with a packer which is selectively actuatable such as that of Current. Both types of packers were known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as set forth in the discloses of Hutchinson and Current where the substitution would create the predictable result of providing for a packer which is selectively actuatable among a string of packers.
Regarding the second limitation, Hutchinson as modified by Current teach a packer which is operated by an Otis Model B shifting tool and a sliding sleeve which is operated by a dropped ball. Accordingly, Hutchinson modified by Current may not teach “wherein each packer and each steam diverter may be actuated by the same position shifting tool.” However, Hueston, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to steam injection operations for hydrocarbon production, teaches the deficient limitation. Specifically, Hueston teaches a plurality of sliding sleeves which may be selectively operated using an OTIS style B-shifting tool. For example, Hueston teaches “multiple devices are screwed onto the liner, spaced appropriately and run vertically downhole into the horizontal leg of the well. The device is run in the CLOSED position, meaning the Sleeve is stroked downwards so that a series of windows misalign with the recess of the Body, hence no flow through from the upper and lower ports. The operator then goes downhole with a 3 ½ B OTIS style B Shifting Tool and selectively opens the device; the tool stabs into the Sleeve and user pulls back on the coil tubing, thereby rendering OPEN the Sleeve.” (Hueston, para. [0022]). Examiner notes that both the packer of Current, which is used to replace the packers of Hutchinson, and the sliding sleeve of Hueston, which is used to replace the sliding sleeve of Hutchinson, utilize an OTIS Model B positioning/shifting device to actuate the respective sleeves and packers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the sliding sleeve of Hutchinson with the sliding sleeve of Hueston. Both types of sliding sleeves were known in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as set forth in the disclosures of Hutchinson and Hueston where the substitution would create the predictable result of providing for a sliding sleeve which is selectively actuatable among a string of sliding sleeves.
Regarding the third limitation of “actuating the packers and steam diverters in one or more trips with a position shifting tool,” Hutchinson as modified by Current and Hueston provides for a positing shifting tool capable of selectively actuate multiple sleeve-type assemblies (either packers or valves) including actuating multiple sleeve assemblies in a single run or in multiple runs. Accordingly, the combination of Hutchinson modified by Current and Hueston reads on the third limitation.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Under Prior Art
Claims 2 and 4—5 are not rejected under the prior art of record; however, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, merely amending claims 1 and 3 to include the subject matter of 2 and/or 4 will not succeed in placing the application in condition for allowance.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitations recited in section (c) of claims 2 and 4 are directed to the structure of the inner shift sleeve as connected to a bolt to the outer shift sleeve in relation to the slots formed in the mandrel in combination with the lower collet retaining shoulder as recited in section (a) were not found in the prior art. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is therefore allowable for incorporating the allowable limitations of claim 4.
Examiner notes that Published WIPO application to Stretch et al. (WO 2024/010837 A1) discloses the closest related art of record. However, the filing date for the application to Stretch et al. does not pre-date the filing date of the instant application and is therefore not eligible as prior art against the instant claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Issued US Patent Application to Callihan et al. (US 3841400 A) which teaches a selectively actuatable packer which uses a Type B OTIS positioning tool for the actuation of the packer;
Issued US Patent Application to Fleckenstein (US 11959666 B2) which teaches a steam injection application using a sliding sleeve assembly which may expose or occlude a flow port where the sliding sleeve assembly is selectively actuated by a Type B OTIS positioning tool;
Issued US Patent Application to van Petegem et al. (US 10502025 B2) which teaches a steam diversion assembly including sliding sleeves which expose and/or occlude flow ports which provide steam to the wellbore/formation where the sliding sleeves are selectively actuated by a coiled tubing relayed OTIS B shifting tool;
Issued US Patent Application to Sharma et al. (US 9562422 B2) which teaches a steam injection operation and wellbore configuration including isolation packers 140A—D as depicted in FIG. 1 along with selective control isolation valves including sliding sleeves which control the zone into which the stimulation fluid (e.g., steam) is injected; and
Issued US Patent Application to Kofoed et al. (US 9581003 B2) which teaches a steam injection system, as depicted in FIG. 3 which includes inflow control devices (e.g., sliding sleeves) 222 and packers 206.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights