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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023049389 A1 to CANDIANI.
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 housing seal 110 and second state disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow trim ports (Figs 2a,b, see also [0006],[0032], [0035]), wherein a size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing 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 while providing at least a 1.5 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 housing 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, 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 housing 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 2-4: CANDIANI wherein the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing seal from eroding (Figs. 2a,2b this is a similar configuration to applicants where the flow path is not directed toward the seal and would work in the same manner.), however does not explicitly detail while providing at least a 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 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 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 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 5: CANDIANI discloses 5. The flow control valve a recited in claim 1, 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 housing seal from eroding (Figs. 2a,2b this is a similar configuration to applicants where the flow path is not directed toward the seal and would work in the same manner.) however is silent on” 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 6: CANDIANI discloses 6. The flow control valve as recited in claim 1, wherein the nearest most flow trim port is one of a circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports (Figure 2a, 2b, [0033]).
Regarding claim 7: CANDIANI discloses 7. The flow control valve as recited in claim 6, wherein the circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports is a first circumferential ring, and further including a second circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports is positioned further from the housing seal than the first circumferential ring, wherein the second circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports are larger than the first ring of multiple similar sized ports.(best seen in Figure 2b, [0033])
Regarding claim 8: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein the nearest most flow trim port is a distance (d) of at least 60 mm from the housing 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 housing 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 10: CANDIANI discloses 10. The flow control valve as recited in claim 1, further including 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]
Claim(s) 9 and 11-21 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.
Regarding claim 9: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein the housing seal is 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 a method, 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 housing seal 110 and second state disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow trim ports (Figs 2a,b, see also [0006],[0032], [0035]), wherein a size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing seal from eroding (Figures 2A,2B this is also the same configuration as applicant and would work in the same manner.) and
actuating the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state.[0008]
However fails to disclose positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations, the downhole tool having the flow control valve and providing at least a 1.5 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 housing 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, 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 housing 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).
El Mallawany teaches a flow control valve 20 positioned in a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations (Figure 1).
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.
Regarding claims 12-14: CANDIANI wherein the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing seal from eroding (Figs. 2a,2b this is a similar configuration to applicants where the flow path is not directed toward the seal and would work in the same manner.), however does not explicitly detail while providing at least a 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 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 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 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 15: 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 housing seal from eroding (Figs. 2a,2b this is a similar configuration to applicants where the flow path is not directed toward the seal and would work in the same manner.) however is silent on” 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 16: CANDIANI discloses wherein the nearest most flow trim port is one of a circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports (Figure 2a, 2b, [0033]).
Regarding claim 17: CANDIANI discloses wherein the circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports is a first circumferential ring, and further including a second circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports is positioned further from the housing seal than the first circumferential ring, wherein the second circumferential ring of multiple similar sized flow trim ports are larger than the first ring of multiple similar sized ports.(best seen in Figure 2b, [0033])
Regarding claim 18: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein the nearest most flow trim port is a distance (d) of at least 60 mm from the housing 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 housing 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 19: CANDIANI discloses the claimed invention except wherein the housing seal is 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 20: CANDIANI discloses further including 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]
Regarding claim 21: CANDIANI discloses
a flow control valve (abstract) 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 housing seal 110 and second state disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow trim ports (Figs 2a,b, see also [0006],[0032], [0035]), wherein a size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing seal from eroding (Figures 2A,2B this is also the same configuration as applicant and would work in the same manner.)
However fails to explicitly disclose A well system, comprising: 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 providing at least a 1.5 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 housing seal.
El Mallawany teaches a flow control valve 20 positioned in a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations (Figure 1)
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]
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