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 .
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.
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) 1-4, 10-14, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170211346 to Bullock.
Regarding claim 1, Bullock teaches a latch coupling, comprising: a housing 20 having an outside diameter (OD) and an inside diameter (18); and a plurality of axial alignment slots 32 located along the inside diameter (ID) of the housing, wherein each of the plurality of axial alignment slots has a width (fig. 1).
However, it is not explicitly taught that each width is within 10% of each other. Nevertheless, it is shown in the figure that each slot is approximately the same width, and there is nothing in the disclosure that states that the width of each slot would not be the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bullock before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the width of each slot would be within 10% of each other since they are shown to each be of equal width (which would equate to each width being within about less than 1% of each other).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the latch coupling as recited in Claim 1, wherein the plurality of axial alignment slots is at least six or ten axial alignment slots, and further wherein the width (WAS) of each of the at least six axial alignment slots is within 10% of each other (paragraph 0017 specifically states that there could be 6, 10, or even more slots).
Regarding claim 4, paragraph 0017 of Bullock states that there could be more than 10 slots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bullock before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that there could be at least 16 slots since the term “10 or more slots” would include 16 slots. It would have also been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have 16 slots, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the term “10 or more slots” being the general condition), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, the latch coupling as recited in Claim 1, wherein the plurality of axial alignment slots each have a length (extending from the top opening of the slots 16 to the bottom at 34 in fig. 1). However, it is not explicitly taught that the length is at least 3 times the width. Nevertheless, it is shown in the figure that the overall length of each slot 16 is approximately 3 times the width of slot 32 (which is quite narrow in fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bullock before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the length of each slot would be approximately 3 times the width of slot 32.
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Bullock teaches a well system, and associated method for forming the system, comprising: a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations; and wellbore casing located in the wellbore (see paragraphs 0002-0003), the wellbore casing including a latch coupling, the latch coupling including: a housing 20 having an outside diameter (OD) and an inside diameter (18); and a plurality of axial alignment slots, each having a width, located along the inside diameter of the housing (fig. 1).
However, it is not explicitly taught that each width is within 10% of each other. Nevertheless, it is shown in the figure that each slot is approximately the same width, and there is nothing in the disclosure that states that the width of each slot would not be the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bullock before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the width of each slot would be within 10% of each other since they are shown to each be of equal width (which would equate to each width being within about less than 1% of each other).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the latch coupling as recited in Claim 11, wherein the plurality of axial alignment slots is at least six or ten axial alignment slots, and further wherein the width (WAS) of each of the at least six axial alignment slots is within 10% of each other (paragraph 0017 specifically states that there could be 6, 10, or even more slots).
Regarding claim 14, paragraph 0017 of Bullock states that there could be more than 10 slots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bullock before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that there could be at least 16 slots since the term “10 or more slots” would include 16 slots. It would have also been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have 16 slots, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the term “10 or more slots” being the general condition), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, the latch coupling as recited in Claim 1, wherein the plurality of axial alignment slots each have a length (extending from the top opening of the slots 16 to the bottom at 34 in fig. 1). However, it is not explicitly taught that the length is at least 3 times the width. Nevertheless, it is shown in the figure that the overall length of each slot 16 is approximately 3 times the width of slot 32 (which is quite narrow in fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bullock before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the length of each slot would be approximately 3 times the width of slot 32.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullock in view of US 20120067595 to Noske et al.
Bullock teaches the latch coupling from claims 1 and 11 above, but does not specifically teach that there is a radial extending latch collet selector profile located along the inside diameter (ID) of the housing.
Noske teaches a latch coupling housing 705 for use downhole somewhat similar to that of Bullock, wherein it is further taught that a radial extending latch collet selector profile 706l is located along the inside diameter (ID) of the housing (fig. 9G). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a radial extending latch collet selector profile as taught by Noske in the housing of Bullock. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a radial extending latch collet selector profile was a well-known means for receiving and latching collets, as taught by Noske.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18481587. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 SHANE BOMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7026. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EST M-Th.
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.
/SHANE BOMAR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3674