DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 4/14/2026 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I without traverse is acknowledged. However, based on the amendment of 4/14/2026, all claims are understood as drawn toward a single invention and the restriction requirement of 3/27/2026 is withdrawn.
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 7-8, 20, and 29-30 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.
Claims 7 lacks antecedent basis for “the key” and is therefore indefinite. Claim 8 is indefinite as being dependent from an indefinite claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite as reciting that the tool further comprises “an anti-rotation or -slippage mechanism..” where this limitation appears already within claim 1 and therefore it is indefinite if this is referring to a separate anti-rotation mechanism that that previously recited.
Claim 29 recites that “the downhole tool” further comprises a plurality of movable members. However, this claim is indefinite since it appears at least some of these components should be recited as part of the “anti-rotation mechanism” (as in claim 28) which already comprises “at least one movable member” which as best understood would be included as one of the “plurality of movable members” recited in this claim.
Claim 30 is indefinite since the limitation of “a receptacle at depth below an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve” appears already recited as one of the plurality of “sleeve key receptacles” in claim 29. Further, this claim is indefinite as reciting “a bridge plug rated in satisfaction of V0 requirements” since it is not clear what this limitation would require.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 25, dependent on claim 24, appears to only repeat limitations already recited in claim 24. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-4, 6, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Barnes (US 2,365,327).
In regard to claim 1, Barnes discloses a downhole tool for use in a wellbore, the downhole tool comprising: a mandrel (2) comprising: a distal end, a proximate end, and an outer mandrel surface; at least one component (5/11/14 at least) disposed on the mandrel in a run-in configuration (as in position as in page 2, col. 1, lines 14-20), and between the distal end and the proximate end (as in fig 1); and an anti-rotation mechanism (16, as in fig 5) engaged with a first end of the at least one component (as engaged with 14), and comprising an at least one movable member (16) movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as in fig 5, page 1, col. 2, lines 49+).
In regard to claim 2, Barnes discloses wherein the downhole tool is selectably engageable to a surrounding surface in the wellbore (with packer A, page 2, col. 1, lines 43-45).
In regard to claim 3, Barnes discloses the downhole tool further comprising a first slip (7) and a second slip (7 as in fig 4, two are shown, page 1, col. 2, lines 21-32 disclose multiple slips), each of the first slip and the second slip disposed around the mandrel in the run-in configuration (as in fig 4).
In regard to claim 4, Barnes discloses the downhole tool is configured to move from the run-in configuration (as initially run in as in page 2, col. 1, lines 14-20) to an at least one of: a set configuration (where packer A, is at least set into a set configuration; or adjustable portion 5 as being in final location), a disconnected configuration, and combinations thereof.
In regard to claim 6, Barnes discloses a second end of the at least one component comprises a key (4).
In regard to claim 20, Barnes discloses the downhole tool is configured to move from the run-in configuration (as initially run in as in page 2, col. 1, lines 14-20) to an at least one of: a set configuration (where packer A, is at least set into a set configuration; or adjustable portion 5 as being in final location), a disconnected configuration, and combinations thereof, and wherein the downhole tool further comprises: an anti-rotation or-slippage mechanism (16, multiple as in fig 5) engaged with a first end of the at least one component, and comprising an at least one movable member (15) movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as in fig 5).
In regard to claim 21, Barnes discloses a downhole tool for use in a wellbore, the downhole tool comprising: a mandrel (2) comprising: a distal end, a proximate end, and an outer mandrel surface; at least one component (5/11/14 at least) disposed on the mandrel in a run-in configuration (as in position as in page 2, col. 1, lines 14-20), and between the distal end and the proximate end (as in fig 1); and an anti-rotation mechanism (16, as in fig 5) engaged with a first end of the at least one component (as engaged with 14), and comprising an at least one movable member (16) movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as in fig 5, page 1, col. 2, lines 49+), wherein the downhole tool is configured to move from the run-in configuration (as initially run in as in page 2, col. 1, lines 14-20) to an at least one of: a set configuration (where packer A, is at least set into a set configuration; or adjustable portion 5 as being in final location), a disconnected configuration, and combinations thereof, and wherein a second end of the at least one component comprises a key (4).
In regard to claim 22, Barnes discloses wherein the downhole tool is selectably engageable to a surrounding surface in the wellbore (with packer A, page 2, col. 1, lines 43-45).
In regard to claim 23, Barnes discloses the downhole tool further comprising a first slip (7) and a second slip (7 as in fig 4, two are shown, page 1, col. 2, lines 21-32 disclose multiple slips), each of the first slip and the second slip disposed around the mandrel in the run-in configuration (as in fig 4).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 20-23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Barrett et al. (US 11,959,355).
In regard to claim 1, Barrett et al. discloses a downhole tool for use in a wellbore, the downhole tool comprising: a mandrel (502, as in fig 5, as similar to 202 in fig 2) comprising: a distal end, a proximate end, and an outer mandrel surface; at least one component (510) disposed on the mandrel in a run-in configuration, and between the distal end and the proximate end; and an anti-rotation mechanism (504) engaged with a first end of the at least one component (at 504B), and comprising an at least one movable member (504) movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as placed around 502 as in fig 2, where at least rotation is allowed).
In regard to claim 2, Barrett et al. discloses wherein the downhole tool is selectably engageable to a surrounding surface in the wellbore (510 as would engage when set).
In regard to claim 3, Barrett et al. disclose the downhole tool further comprising a first slip (514) and a second slip (506), each of the first slip and the second slip disposed around the mandrel in the run-in configuration (as in fig 5).
In regard to claim 4, Barrett et al. discloses wherein the downhole tool is configured to move from the run-in configuration (as in fig 5 to an at least one of: a set configuration (as in col. 6, lines 14-20), a disconnected configuration (as in col. 6, lines 14-20), and combinations thereof.
In regard to claim 6, Barrett et al. disclose wherein a second end of the at least one component comprises a key (810).
In regard to claim 7, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the key comprises a key nose portion (right most portion of 810 as in fig 8), and a key back end (at widest portion and above as in fig 8), wherein the key nose portion comprises a first width, wherein the key back end comprises a second width, and wherein the second width is greater than the first width (where second portion as including widest portion as in fig 8).
In regard to claim 8, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the key nose portion comprises a tapered top surface (as in fig 8, top/outer surface 810).
In regard to claim 9, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the at least one component comprises a sleeve (506, as in fig 5) configured with a first sleeve end and a second sleeve end, wherein the first sleeve end comprises a key receptacle (as containing 810 in fig 5) with a key (810) disposed therein, wherein the second sleeve end comprises pocket (indentation in end of 506 as containing matching portion of 504, as in fig 5) with the at least one movable member at least partially disposed therein (where peak of 504 fits within pocket divot in 506).
The downhole tool of claim 20, wherein the downhole tool is configured to move from the run-in configuration (as in fig 5) to an at least one of: a set configuration (as in col. 6, lines 14-20), a disconnected configuration, and combinations thereof, and wherein the downhole tool further comprises: an anti-rotation or -slippage mechanism (504) engaged with a first end of the at least one component, and comprising an at least one movable member movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as placed around 502 as in fig 2, where at least rotation is allowed).
In regard to claim 21, Barrett et al. disclose a downhole tool for use in a wellbore, the downhole tool comprising: a mandrel (502, as in fig 5, as similar to 202 in fig 2) comprising: a distal end, a proximate end, and an outer mandrel surface; at least one component (510) disposed on the mandrel in a run-in configuration, and between the distal end and the proximate end; and an anti-rotation mechanism (504) engaged with a first end of the at least one component (at 504B), and comprising an at least one movable member (504) movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as placed around 502 as in fig 2, where at least rotation is allowed), wherein the downhole tool is configured to move from the run-in configuration (as in fig 5) to an at least one of: a set configuration (as in col. 6, lines 14-20), a disconnected configuration (as in col. 6, lines 14-20), and combinations thereof, and wherein a second end of the at least one component comprises a key (810).
In regard to claim 22, Barrett et al. discloses wherein the downhole tool is selectably engageable to a surrounding surface in the wellbore (510 as would engage when set).
In regard to claim 23, Barrett et al. disclose the downhole tool further comprising a first slip (514) and a second slip (506), each of the first slip and the second slip disposed around the mandrel in the run-in configuration (as in fig 5).
In regard to claim 26, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the key comprises a key nose portion (right most portion of 810 as in fig 8), and a key back end (at widest portion and above as in fig 8), wherein the key nose portion comprises a first width, wherein the key back end comprises a second width, and wherein the second width is greater than the first width (where second portion as including widest portion as in fig 8).
In regard to claim 27, Barrett et al. disclose wherein the key nose portion comprises a tapered top surface (as in fig 8, top/outer surface 810).
In regard to claim 28, Barrett et al. disclose a downhole tool for use in a wellbore, the downhole tool comprising: a mandrel (502, as in fig 5, as similar to 202 in fig 2) comprising: a distal end, a proximate end, and an outer mandrel surface; at least one component (510) disposed on the mandrel in a run-in configuration, and between the distal end and the proximate end; and an anti-rotation mechanism (504) engaged with a first end of the at least one component (at 504B), and comprising an at least one movable member (504) movingly engaged with the outer mandrel surface (as placed around 502 as in fig 2, where at least rotation is allowed), wherein a second end of the at least one component comprises a key (810) configured with a key nose portion (right most portion of 810 as in fig 8), and a key back end (at widest portion and above as in fig 8), wherein the key nose portion comprises a first width, wherein the key back end comprises a second width, and wherein the second width is greater than the first width (where second portion as including widest portion as in fig 8).
. 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) 5, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett et al. in view of Shkurti et al. (US 2008/0190600).
In regard to claim 5, Barrett et al. disclose all the limitations of this claim, as applied to claim 1 above and including wherein the anti-rotation mechanism facilitates linear longitudinal movement between the at least one component and the mandrel when the downhole tool is moved from the run-in configuration to a set configuration (as required to set 510, movement must be allowed between mandrel and component), but do not include a lock feature configured to prevent rotational movement between the at least one component and the mandrel.
Shkurti et al. disclose a downhole tool including an anti-rotation mechanism comprising a lock feature (paragraph 43, shear screw as between 110 and mandrel 101) configured to prevent rotational movement between the at least one component and the mandrel (where 110 is equivalent to component 506 of Barrett et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the tool of Barrett et al. with the lock feature, as taught by Shkurti et al., since combining prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 24 and 25, Barrett et al. disclose all the limitations of these claims, as applied to claim 23 above and including wherein the anti-rotation mechanism facilitates linear longitudinal movement between the at least one component and the mandrel when the downhole tool is moved from the run-in configuration to a set configuration (as required to set 510, movement must be allowed between mandrel and component), but do not include a lock feature configured to prevent rotational movement between the at least one component and the mandrel.
Shkurti et al. disclose a downhole tool including an anti-rotation mechanism comprising a lock feature (paragraph 43, shear screw as between 110 and mandrel 101) configured to prevent rotational movement between the at least one component and the mandrel (where 110 is equivalent to component 506 of Barrett et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the tool of Barrett et al. with the lock feature, as taught by Shkurti et al., since combining prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sosa et al. (US 2023/0167699), and Frazier (US 8,307,892) disclose bridge plugs with a mandrel and an anti-rotation mechanism.
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
5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights