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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Improper cross hatching for figures 2C-2G. The different parts appear to have the same cross hatching.
Poor/ fuzzy line and text quality (Figures 1 and 2A are acceptable, 2B-2G is poor. 6-9 is very poor).
Shading of parts (Figure 3, 4A-C, 5A-E). See MPEP Rule 1.84(m) regarding shading.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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)1-9, 11-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023049389 A1 to CANDIANI in view of US 20180202251 A1 to El Mallawany.
(Note Independent claims are address first and like claims grouped together)
Regarding claim 1: CANDIANI discloses 1. A flow control valve (Abstract), comprising:
a housing 108 including a central bore 112 extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through (Figs 2a,b);
an opening 113 located in a sidewall of the housing (Fig. 2A,[0032]);
a flow trim 102 coupled with the housing and covering the opening 113 (Figure 2a,b), the flow trim including one or more flow trim ports 106 configured to allow the subsurface fluids to pass between the housing and a subterranean formation surrounding the housing (Figs 2a,b);
a sliding sleeve 104 disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering the one or more flow trim ports and engaging a metal seal 110 [0032] and second state disengaging from the metal seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow trim ports (Figs 2a,b, see also [0006],[0032], [0035]); and
an electric actuator [0004] coupled with the sliding sleeve [0029], the electric actuator configured to move the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state [0030].
However CANDIANI fails to explicitly disclose a metal-to-metal seal.
El Mallawany teaches a metal to metal seal 26 for a sliding sleeve.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use a metal to metal seal in the style of El Mallawany so as to have “an improved metal to metal seal for reliable low and high pressure sealing.”[0004]
Regarding claim 11: CANDIANI discloses 11. A method, comprising:
a flow control valve, including:
a housing 108 including a central bore 112 extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through (Figs 2a,b);
an opening 113 located in a sidewall of the housing (Fig. 2A,[0032]);
a flow trim 102 coupled with the housing and covering the opening 113 (Figure 2a,b), the flow trim including one or more flow trim ports 106 configured to allow the subsurface fluids to pass between the housing and a subterranean formation surrounding the housing (Figs 2a,b);
a sliding sleeve 104 disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering the one or more flow trim ports and engaging a metal seal 110 and second state disengaging from the metal seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow trim ports (Figs 2a,b, see also [0006],[0032], [0035]); and
an electric actuator [0004] coupled with the sliding sleeve [0029], the electric actuator configured to move the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state [0030], and actuating the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state.[0008]
However CANDIANI does not explicitly disclose positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations, the downhole tool having the flow control valve or a metal-to-metal seal.
El Mallawany teaches a flow control valve 20 positioned in a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations (Figure 1) a metal to metal seal 26 for a sliding sleeve.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use his flow control valve in a wellbore, in view of El Mallawany, as this is notoriously conventional and the intended purpose of the valve of CANDIANI[0002-0003].
Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use a metal to metal seal in the style of El Mallawany so as to have “an improved metal to metal seal for reliable low and high pressure sealing.”[0004]
Regarding claims 2 and 12: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein the metal-to-metal seal is an interference fit seal.
El Mallawany teaches a metal to metal seal 26 for a sliding sleeve where the seal is an interference fit seal.(See [0037], the need for deflection in sealing is interpreted as an interference type fit)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use a seal in the style of El Mallawany so as to have “an improved metal to metal seal for reliable low and high pressure sealing.”[0004]
Regarding claims 3 and 13: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein an interior radial surface of the interference fit metal-to-metal seal includes one or more seal nubs configured to engage with the sliding sleeve when the sliding sleeve is in the first state.
El Mallawany teaches a metal to metal seal 26 for a sliding sleeve where the seal has seal nub 34 configured to engage the surface of a sleeve. [0033]
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use a seal in the style of El Mallawany so as to have “an improved metal to metal seal for reliable low and high pressure sealing.”[0004]
Regarding claims 4-7 and 14-17: CANDIANI discloses wherein a size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the metal-to-metal seal from eroding (Figures 2A,2B this is also the same configuration as applicant and would work in the same manner.) However fails to disclose providing at least a 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 KSI pressure differential between an outside of the housing and the central bore as the sliding sleeve moves past a nearest most flow trim port to the metal-to-metal seal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have designed the components of the valve such that it would be providing at least a 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 KSI pressure differential between an outside of the housing and the central bore as the sliding sleeve moves past a nearest most flow trim port to the metal-to-metal seal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: CANDIANI discloses wherein the size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to improve turbulence properties created as the subsurface fluids pass through the nearest most flow trim port to prevent the metal-to-metal seal from eroding (Figures 2A,2B this is also the same configuration as applicant and would work in the same manner.) but does not explicitly disclose while providing at least the 1.5 KSI pressure differential.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have designed the components of the valve such that it would be providing at least a 1.5 KSI pressure differential, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9 and 19: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein the nearest most flow trim port is a distance (d) of at least 60 mm from the metal-to-metal seal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the nearest most flow trim port is a distance (d) of at least 60 mm from the metal-to-metal seal , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 21: CANDIANI discloses 21. A well system, comprising:
a flow control valve, including:
a housing 108 including a central bore 112 extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through (Figs 2a,b);
an opening 113 located in a sidewall of the housing (Fig. 2A,[0032]);
a flow trim 102 coupled with the housing and covering the opening 113 (Figure 2a,b), the flow trim including one or more flow trim ports 106 configured to allow the subsurface fluids to pass between the housing and a subterranean formation surrounding the housing (Figs 2a,b);
a sliding sleeve 104 disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering the one or more flow trim ports and engaging a metal-to-metal seal 110 and second state disengaging from the metal-to-metal seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow trim ports (Figs 2a,b, see also [0006],[0032], [0035]); and
an electric actuator [0004] coupled with the sliding sleeve [0029], the electric actuator configured to move the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state [0030].
However CANDIANI does not explicitly disclose a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations; and a downhole tool located within the wellbore, the downhole tool having, the flow control valve or a metal-to-metal seal.
El Mallawany teaches a flow control valve 20 positioned in a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations (Figure 1) a metal to metal seal 26 for a sliding sleeve.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use his flow control valve in a wellbore, in view of El Mallawany, as this is notoriously conventional and the intended purpose of the valve of CANDIANI[ 0002-0003].
Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and use a metal to metal seal in the style of El Mallawany so as to have “an improved metal to metal seal for reliable low and high pressure sealing.”[0004]
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023049389 A1 to CANDIANI and US 20180202251 A1 to El Mallawany further in view of US 20230018892 A1 to Chouzenoux.
Regarding claim 10: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except 10. The flow control valve as recited in claim 1, further including a decoupling mechanism positioned between the sliding sleeve and the electric actuator, the decoupling mechanism configured to allow the sliding sleeve to move between the first state and the second state apart from an electric operation of the electric actuator.
Chouzenoux discloses a downhole tool with an electrical actuator for moving a sliding sleeve with a decoupling mechanism 80 between the actuator and the sleeve.[0047]
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and include a decoupling mechanism positioned between the sliding sleeve and the electric actuator, the decoupling mechanism configured to allow the sliding sleeve to move between the first state and the second state apart from an electric operation of the electric actuator, in view of Chouzenoux, so as to allow the sleeve to be decoupled from the actuator in case of failure and moved via an external means such as a shifting tool. This would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except further including a decoupling mechanism positioned between the sliding sleeve and the electric actuator, the decoupling mechanism configured to allow the sliding sleeve to move between the first state and the second state apart from an electric operation of the electric actuator.
Chouzenoux discloses a downhole tool with an electrical actuator for moving a sliding sleeve with a decoupling mechanism 80 between the actuator and the sleeve.[0047]
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified CANDIANI and include a decoupling mechanism positioned between the sliding sleeve and the electric actuator, the decoupling mechanism configured to allow the sliding sleeve to move between the first state and the second state apart from an electric operation of the electric actuator, in view of Chouzenoux, so as to allow the sleeve to be decoupled from the actuator in case of failure and moved via an external means such as a shifting tool. This would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230366292 A1 to Prost discloses a downhole inflow control valve with a sliding sleeve.
US 6041857 A to Carmody discloses an actuator for downhole tools including sliding sleeves.
US 8757252 B2 to Franklin discloses a wellbore inflow control with a sliding sleeve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights