DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wiliamson’s 200 is sleeve system – a downhole assembly - not as liners installed in the wellbore. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Williamson discloses a 200 is clearly tubular structures (i.e., figs. 2-3) that are placed inside well borehole 114 (i.e. fig. 1), Thus it is clearly liner (https://www.bing.com/search?q=well+liner&cvid=e21015c053d24df2bdfa4f7ac54f8030&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEAyBggJEAAYQDIICAoQ6QcY_FXSAQgzMjIzajBqN6gCALACAA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531).
Applicant further argues that Williamson’s obturator 276 does not form a circumferential seal against an inner wall of a liner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Williamson clearly teaches, in fig. 3, that the obturator 276 does form a circumferential seal against an inner wall of a liner 206. Fig. 3 clearly depicts no gaps between the obturator 276 and inner wall of liner 206.
Applicant further argues that Williamson fails to teach the seal plug actively transforms from a restricted state to an unrestricted state to form a circumferential seal against an inner wall of the liner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Williamson teaches, in fig. 2, obturator 276 is held (restricted) by the seat 270 and, in fig. 3, obturator 276 is released (unrestricted) by the seat 270 to form a circumferential seal against an inner wall of the liner 206.
All rejections stand.
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)(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, 3-4, 9-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Williamson et al. (20110036590 – Williamson)
Williamson discloses a method, comprising:
Re claim 1:
lowering a device 112 (i.e., fig. 1) for placing a seal plug 276 (i.e., fig. 2) into the liner 200 (220+208+206+224, i.e., fig. 2) of the well (i.e.,220, 208, 206, 224 are tubular structures placed inside a well borehole 114 - well liners https://www.bing.com/search?q=well+liner&cvid=e21015c053d24df2bdfa4f7ac54f8030&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEAyBggJEAAYQDIICAoQ6QcY_FXSAQgzMjIzajBqN6gCALACAA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531).
providing a flow of fluid (i.e., pgh. 36, "the fluid pressure within the sleeve bore") an inlet of a hollow chamber (i.e., top opening of flow bore of sleeve 260) of a restriction member 260 (i.e., a lower section of sleeve 260 holds a ball 276) of the device for placing the seal plug 276, wherein the seal plug is at least partially positioned in the hollow chamber between the inlet and an outlet passage of the hollow chamber (i.e., bottom opening of flow bore of sleeve 260); and
allowing the seal plug 276 to move relative to the restriction member by virtue of the hollow chamber becoming filled with fluid (i.e., pgh. 37, "With the obturator 276 in place against the seat gasket 272, the pressure within the sleeve flow bore 216 may be increased uphole of the obturator until the obturator 276 transmits sufficient force through the seat gasket 272") to release the seal plug 276 from restricted state (276 is held by the seat 270) into an unrestricted state (276 is released by the seat 270) wherein the seal plug 276 forms a circumferential seal against an inner wall of the liner 206 (i.e., fig. 3 depicts no gaps between 276 and an inner wall of the liner 206).
Re claim 3, releasing a temporary connection member 284 (i.e., "shear pin") connected between the restriction member 260 and the at least one clamping member 296 (i.e., fig. 2, it secures the pin).
Re claim 4, wherein the flow of fluid is provided to the hollow chamber through a sealant conduit 260, and wherein no air or gas (i.e., pgh. 36, "maybe air, gaseous nitrogen or any other suitable compressible fluid") is present in the sealant conduit and the hollow chamber while the device is lowered.
Re claim 9, the seal plug 276 comprises a radial clamping mechanism (i.e., horizontal section of the plug 276 that holds the plug at the inner wall the liner) of which in an unrestricted state forms the seal with the inner wall of the liner to restrict fluid from flowing between the radial clamping mechanism and the inner wall of the liner (i.e., fig. 3).
Re claim 10, venting air or other gas (i.e., pgh. 36, "maybe air, gaseous nitrogen") from the hollow chamber.
Re claim 11, the air or other gas is vented from the hollow chamber before the device is lowered more than a length of the device into the well (i.e., pgh. 36, "installation mode" implies installation/lowering not completed).
Re claim 13, the seal plug 276 seals directly to the liner 206 of the well (i.e., fig. 3).
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Carroll (20220178220).
Re claim 5, Williamson is silent on forming a cement plug on top of the seal plug. Carroll teaches forming a cement plug 211 on a top of a plug 280 (i.e., fig. 2, as viewed from bottom). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the plug of Williamson with cement plug on its top as taught by Carroll for an effective performance of the plug (https://www.bing.com/search?q=benefit%20of%20cement&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=benefit%20of%20cement&sc=15-17&sk=&cvid=1936068A47A84CCA98A9E639A0DF8670).
Carroll further teaches,
Re claim 6, positioning a tag plate 525 (i.e., fig. 6) on the cement plug, the tag plate comprising information indicative of the well (i.e., pgh. 64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8 and 12 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.
Reason for allowance:
With respect to claims 2, 8 and 12, the reason for the allowance of claims is the inclusion of the limitation of: the seal plug comprising a radial clamping mechanism for clamping the seal plug in the liner, the radial clamping mechanism comprising at least one clamping member; and a clamping mechanism restriction member for holding the radial clamping mechanism in the a-restricted state, wherein the radial clamping mechanism has a smaller outer footprint in the restricted state than in the unrestricted state and in the unrestricted state, the radial clamping mechanism is no longer restricted by the restriction member; wherein the restriction member comprises a hollow chamber with an inlet for receiving a flow of fluid into the hollow chamber and an outlet passage arranged to allow passage of the radial clamping mechanism out of the hollow chamber, and the radial clamping mechanism is positioned at least partially in the hollow chamber between the inlet and the outlet passage in claims 2 and 12, and the tag plate comprises legs which in the unrestricted state have an outer footprint, which is larger than an inner diameter of the liner in which the tag plate is placed, and wherein the legs are elastically deformed into a restricted state in claim 8. It is these limitations found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, that makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
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 YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
