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 were received on February 24, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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) 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Judge et al. (US 2010/0150648, Judge).
Regarding claims 13 and 18: Judge discloses a system 100, comprising:
a blowout preventer (BOP) system 50, 55 - Abstract comprising:
a BOP body 50 to which is attached a removable bonnet 55 – [0004] –[0006]; and
a plurality of fastening mechanisms 100 – “bolt circle”, [0004]-[0006], [0020] securing the removable bonnet to the BOP body [0004]-[0006], each fastening mechanism comprising a non-threaded quick connect selectively actuatable to a lock position preventing unwanted separation of the removable bonnet from the BOP body [0004]-[0006], [0019]-[0022].
Regarding claim 18: Judge discloses a method for using the above system.
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) 1, 2, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judge in view of Khaitov (US 10,557,582).
Regarding claim 1: Judge discloses a system 100 for preventing blowouts at a well Abstract, comprising:
a blowout preventer (BOP) system 50, 55 comprising:
a BOP body 50 having a longitudinal passage therethrough Fig 1;
a plurality of bonnets 55 – [0004], [0006], one bonnet on each side of the BOP, each bonnet being mounted to the BOP body Fig 1A; and
a plurality of fastening mechanisms 100 - [0004]-[0006] securing each bonnet to the BOP body Fig 1A, each fastening mechanism comprising a lock roller 102 selectively expandable to a lock position preventing separation of the bonnet from the BOP body Fig 1A, 1B.
Judge discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the fastening mechanism including a lock ring.
Khaitov discloses a quick connect mechanism 101. The quick connect mechanism can include lock rollers or lock rings 4:15-25.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Judge to use lock rings instead of lock rollers, as suggested by Khaitov, since the examiner notes the equivalence of lock rings and lock rollers for their use in the quick connect art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to use in the fastening mechanism of Judge would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Khaitov.
Regarding claim 2: Wherein each fastening mechanism comprises a reaction rod 101 of Judge extending between the BOP body and the bonnet Fig 1A of Judge.
Regarding claim 14: Judge discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the non-threaded quick connect comprising a lock ring selectively expandable to the lock position. The quick connect of Judge uses lock rollers 102.
Khaitov discloses a quick connect mechanism 101. The quick connect mechanism can include lock rollers or lock rings 4:15-25.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Judge to use lock rings instead of lock rollers, as suggested by Khaitov, since the examiner notes the equivalence of lock rings and lock rollers for their use in the quick connect art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to use in the fastening mechanism of Judge would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Khaitov.
Claim(s) 3-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judge in view of Khaitov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hester (DE 102006016697 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Judge, as modified, discloses that the lock rings are disposed around the reaction rod Fig 1A of Judge. Judge, as modified fails to disclose that the lock rings are a single split lock ring that is expandable to the lock position.
Hester discloses a quick connect mechanism 1. The mechanism includes a single lock ring 18 that is located around a reaction rod 8 and includes at least one split between sections 18a. The lock ring is expandable to the lock position Fig 4A, 4B.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Judge to use a single split lock ring located around the reaction rod, as taught by Hester, in order to have formed a quick connect that allowed for simple and fast connection without rotation while still being suitable for higher pressure applications (page 2, 2nd paragraph of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the split lock ring comprises a single split formed by section 18a – this claim language does not limit the claim to only one split to enable expansion and contraction (page 3, paragraph 6 of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the split lock ring comprises a plurality of splits formed by section 18a (page 3, paragraph 6 of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 6: Wherein the split lock ring is shiftable between the lock position and an unlock position via a linearly shiftable engagement ring 103 of Judge.
Regarding claim 7: Wherein the linearly shiftable engagement ring is shifted via hydraulic [0021] – pressure within the main body or pneumatic actuation.
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the linearly shiftable engagement ring is shifted via mechanical actuation via insertion into the bolt hole 113 – [0020].
Regarding claim 9: Judge, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the linearly shiftable engagement ring is shifted via electrical actuation.
However, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Judge so that the linearly shiftable engagement ring was shifted via electrical actuation, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of various means of actuation, including electrical, for their use in the quick connect art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to use in Judge would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 10 and 12: Judge, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the lock rings including teeth.
Hester discloses a quick connect mechanism 1. The mechanism includes a single lock ring 18 that is located around a reaction rod 8 and includes at least one split between sections 18a and teeth 32 – Fig 1. The lock ring is expandable to the lock position Fig 4A, 4B.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Judge to use a single split lock ring located around the reaction rod and including teeth, as taught by Hester, in order to have formed a quick connect that allowed for simple and fast connection without rotation while still being suitable for higher pressure applications (page 2, 2nd paragraph of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the lock ring of Judge, as modified, comprises external teeth oriented to engage an internal surface of the BOP body Fig 1A, 1B of Judge, Fig 1 of Hester.
Regarding claim 12: Wherein the lock ring of Judge, as modified, comprises internal teeth oriented to engage a surface of the reaction rod Fig 1A, 1B of Judge.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judge in view of Olson (US 5,653,418).
Judge discloses that the use of the non-thread quick connect in place of the bolts in the bolt circle of the BOP bonnet [0020]. Judge fails to disclose that this includes at least 4 bolts.
Olson discloses a BOP with a removable bonnet 50 that is secured to the main body of the BOP by at least four fasteners 66, 68, 70, 72.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the bonnet of Judge would have been connected to the main body by at least four bolts, as taught by Olson, in order to have ensured that the bonnet was sufficiently secured to the main body to prevent movement or failure during high pressure operations. This would have achieved the predictable results of preventing a loss of pressure containment at the juncture of the bonnet and main body thus preventing a wellbore blowout.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judge in view of Khaitov and Hester.
Regarding claim 16: Judge discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the non-threaded quick connect comprising a lock ring selectively expandable to the lock position and that that lock ring was a split lock ring having at least one split to enable selective expansion and contraction of the split lock ring. The quick connect of Judge uses lock rollers 102.
Khaitov discloses a quick connect mechanism 101. The quick connect mechanism can include lock rollers or lock rings 4:15-25.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Judge to use lock rings instead of lock rollers, as suggested by Khaitov, since the examiner notes the equivalence of lock rings and lock rollers for their use in the quick connect art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to use in the fastening mechanism of Judge would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Khaitov.
Judge, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the lock ring being a split lock ring having at least one split to enable selective expansion and contraction of the split lock ring.
Hester discloses a quick connect mechanism 1. The mechanism includes a single lock ring 18 that is located around a reaction rod 8 and includes at least one split between sections 18a. The lock ring is expandable to the lock position Fig 4A, 4B.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Judge to use a split lock ring located around the reaction rod, as taught by Hester, in order to have formed a quick connect that allowed for simple and fast connection without rotation while still being suitable for higher pressure applications (page 2, 2nd paragraph of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 17: Wherein the lock ring comprises outwardly oriented teeth.
Regarding claim 19: Judge discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the non-threaded quick connect comprising a lock ring selectively expandable to the lock position and that that lock ring was a split lock ring mounted about a reaction rod extending between the BOP body and the removable bonnet. The quick connect of Judge uses lock rollers 102.
Khaitov discloses a quick connect mechanism 101. The quick connect mechanism can include lock rollers or lock rings 4:15-25.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Judge to use lock rings instead of lock rollers, as suggested by Khaitov, since the examiner notes the equivalence of lock rings and lock rollers for their use in the quick connect art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to use in the fastening mechanism of Judge would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Khaitov.
Judge, as modified, discloses that the lock rings are disposed around the reaction rod Fig 1A of Judge.
Judge, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the lock ring being a split lock ring mounted about a reaction rod extending between the BOP body and the removable bonnet.
Hester discloses a quick connect mechanism 1. The mechanism includes a single lock ring 18 that is located around a reaction rod 8 and includes at least one split between sections 18a. The lock ring is expandable to the lock position Fig 4A, 4B.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Judge to use a split lock ring located around the reaction rod, as taught by Hester, in order to have formed a quick connect that allowed for simple and fast connection without rotation while still being suitable for higher pressure applications (page 2, 2nd paragraph of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 20: The method further comprising selectively actuating the split lock ring between a contracted unlock position and an expanded lock position via a hydraulically actuated engagement ring 103, [0021] of Judge – pressure within the main body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a BOP system that includes a plurality of fastening mechanism that include a lock ring comprises external teeth oriented to engage an internal surface of the bonnet of the BOP as recited in the claimed combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights