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 filing dated 6/18/25 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the newly amended subject matter is not taught. Specifically that the “selectively accessing at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore with a fracturing string at the y-block” is not taught by the current combination. Applicant contends that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board taught the “through” limitation previously presented, but, not the “at” limitation. Rather, the Board notes that the limitations argues are not present in the claim.
The examiner maintains at a selective access of e.g. the lateral wellbore does occur “at the y-block”. An operator chooses (i.e. “selects”) to access at least the lateral wellbore. This occurs at the y-block, as the y-block must be utilized.
The examiner notes that this application was inherited from another examiner. Some of the nuances which applicant may intend, may not be readily apparent from the written record. The examiner invites applicant to clarify via an interview or written means. For example, there may be additional particulars as to how the “selective access” at the y-block occurs beyond the broad, but, reasonable interpretation in which the claim limitation is met merely by virtue of accessing one of the recited bores.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The line quality in Figures 1-19 have poor line quality such that they would result in unsatisfactory reproduction characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(L). Additionally the figures use improper shading and/or cross hatching for those figures depicting elements in a cross-sectional view.
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
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 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al. (US 9822612) in view of Brockman (US 6915847).
With respect to claim 1, Steele et al. disclose a method for accessing a well system, comprising: placing a multilateral junction (42) proximate an intersection between a main wellbore (13) and a lateral wellbore (15), the multilateral junction including; a y-block (see column 4 lines 38-42), the y-block including; a housing having a first end (uphole end, see figure 2) and a second opposing end (downhole end, see figure 2); a single first bore extending into the housing from the first end, the single first bore defining a first centerline (see figure 2); and second (towards 30) and third separate bores (towards 32) extending into the housing and branching off from the single first bore, the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (see figure 2); a mainbore leg coupled to the second bore and extending into the main wellbore (see figure 1); and a lateral bore leg coupled to the third bore and extending into the lateral wellbore (see figure 1); and selectively accessing at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore with a fracturing string (110) at the y-block (see figure 2, wherein the work string includes 120 which is used for fracturing – see column 6 lines 23-35). Steele disclose that the junction may be connected to the lateral completion string 32 before the completion tool 120 is positioned with in the lateral completion string 32 (see column 8 lines 5-10), but does not disclose installing the junction with a running tool. Brockman teaches that running tools may be installed by running the junction assembly in on a running string (see column 2 line 64-column 3 line 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steele by inserting the junction with a running tool as taught by Brockman in order to install the junction. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have pulled out the running tool, as the running tool would need to be removed to make room for the completion tool. Therefore, the combination of Steele in view of Brockman disclose pulling the running tool out and then accessing the lateral bore with the fracturing string.
With respect to claim 2, Steele et al. disclose further including fracturing the at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore with the fracturing string extending through the y-block (see column 6 lines 46-53).
With respect to claim 3, Steele et al. disclose wherein selectively accessing at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore includes selectively accessing the main wellbore with a first fracturing string through the y-block (see column 15 line 58-column 16 line 3).
With respect to claim 4, Steele et al. disclose further including fracturing the main wellbore with the first fracturing string extending through the y-block (see column 1 lines 34-41).
With respect to claim 5, Steele et al. disclose further including selectively accessing the lateral wellbore with a second fracturing string through the y-block (see claims 1 and 2, wherein a completion tool assembly is inserted into the main wellbore and then a completion tool assembly is run into the lateral wellbore).
With respect to claim 6, Steele et al. disclose further including fracturing the lateral wellbore with the second fracturing string extending through the y-block (see column 6 lines 23-35 wherein the completion tool is used for fracturing).
With respect to claim 7, Steele et al. disclose wherein selectively accessing the main wellbore and fracturing the main wellbore occurs prior to selectively accessing the lateral wellbore and fracturing the lateral wellbore (see claims 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 8, Steele et al. disclose fracturing both the main and lateral wellbore with the completion tool assembly. However, Steele et al. is silent as to whether the selectively accessing the main wellbore and fracturing the main wellbore occurs after selectively accessing the lateral wellbore and fracturing the lateral wellbore. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried fracturing the lateral wellbore first and then the main wellbore second as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and known options include fracturing one wellbore and then the other wellbore.
With respect to claim 9, Steele et al. disclose further including producing fluids from fractures in the main wellbore and fractures in the lateral wellbore through the y-block (see column 15 lines 16-22).
With respect to claim 18, Steele et al. disclose wherein the second and third centerlines are angled relative to one another (see figure 2).
With respect to claim 19, Steele et al. disclose wherein the second and third bores overlap one another proximate the single first bore (see figure 2).
With respect to claim 20, Steele et al. disclose wherein a shared interior wall of the second and third bores comes to a sharp point at a location wherein the second and third bores overlap one another (see figure 2 at the intersection of the two bores).
With respect to claim 21, Steele et al. disclose wherein a shared interior wall of the second and third bores comes to a blunt stress relief point (wherein the point of overlap between interior walls is considered a blunt stress relief point) at a location wherein the second and third bores overlap one another.
With respect to claim 22, Steele et al. disclose wherein the selectively accessing the at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore with the fracturing string at the y-block after pulling the running tool out of hole (see parent), includes: positioning the fracturing string within the main wellbore (see figure 2, wherein the work string 110 includes 120 which is used for fracturing – see column 6 lines 23-35. In order for it to be positioned as shown, it must be “positioned” at some point in time within the main wellbore); then pushing the fracturing string further downhole within the main wellbore until it approaches the multilateral junction (see figure 2, string 110 in order for it to be positioned as shown, it must be deployed/run/pushed via at least the weight of the uphole string portions at some point in time within the main wellbore before the junction); then pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block to selectively access the at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore (see figure 2, string 110 in order for it to be positioned as shown, it must be deployed/run/pushed via at least the weight of the uphole string into the first bore to access the lateral wellbore. See also Column 8, lines 53-55).
With respect to claim 24, Steele et al. disclose wherein pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block to selectively access the at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore includes pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block and through the third bore of the y-block to selectively access the lateral wellbore (see figure 2, string 110 in order for it to be positioned as shown, it must be deployed/run/pushed via at least the weight of the uphole string into the first bore to access the lateral wellbore. See also Column 8, lines 53-55). .
Claims 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al. (US 9822612) in view of Brockman (US 6915847), in view of Anders (USP 9,394,778)
With respect to claims 10-12, Steele et al. disclose that the fracturing string may be any size to be lowered into and removed from the wellbore (see column 5 line 61 to column 6 line 6), but Steele et al. does not disclose the specific diameter of the main bore leg, lateral leg or working string. Anders disclose that a working string can have an inner diameter of 4 inches (101.6mm) (see column 8 lines 31-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a working string having a 4 inches diameter as taught by Anders as this is a conventional working string size for the purpose of injecting a fracturing fluid. As the working string must fit with the junction in Steele et al. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the diameters of the main bore leg and lateral bore least 101.6mm diameter, which encompasses the claimed range of least 80mm, at least 87mm, and at least 90mm.
With respect to claims 13-15, Steele et al. in view of Anders disclose a diameter of 101.6mm which encompasses the claimed range of an outside diameter of 78mm, an outside diameter of 85.7mm and an inside diameter of at least 50.8mm.
Claims 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al. (US 9822612), in view of Brockman (US 6915847), in view of Wolf et al. (US 2015/0376955).
With respect to claims 16-17, Steele et al. is silent as to the burst rate. Wolf et al. disclose a junction having a burst rate of 10,000 psi (see paragraph 21) in order to provide differential pressure isolation capable with respect to the lateral leg of the junction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected a junction operable at 10,000 psi as taught by Wolf et al. in order to install a junction with can withstand 10,000psi pressure.
Claims 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al. (US 9822612) in view of Brockman (US 6915847), in view of Cowling (WO 2014177587 A2)
Regarding claim 23, while Steele suggests access of the main wellbore (see column 15 line 58-column 16 line 3), Steele is not explicit on wherein pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block to selectively access the at least one of the main wellbore or the lateral wellbore includes pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block and through the second bore of the y-block to selectively access the main wellbore.
Cowling teaches pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block and through the second bore of the y-block to selectively access the main wellbore (note this is a modification to Steele, which teaches the particulars of the fracturing string and y-block; Fig 2, string 72 which is used to deploy stimulation fluids “production string includes sliding sleeves which are opened to permit outflow of a stimulating fluid, such as an acid, fracturing fluid”, see page 2, lines 11-12. This is in the main wellbore via a split/the y-block as a modification to Steele. The string must be deployed/run/pushed via at least the weight of the uphole string).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Steele by pushing the fracturing string into the single first bore of the y-block and through the second bore of the y-block to selectively access the main wellbore as disclosed by Cowling because Steele already suggests access of the main wellbore, Cowling provides the implementing details of accessing that main wellbore. Additionally, accessing the main wellbore in the manner suggested by Cowling would allow for the use of stimulation fluids such as fracturing fluid and acid to enhance production in the main wellbore.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676