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 of 4/29/26 has been entered. Please note the drawing objections have not been addressed as of the drafting of this action and so are presented again below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 7, 9, 17-18, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmer (US 6732801 B2), in view of Wolf (US 20150376955 A1), in view of Skeates (US 20110024121 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ohmer teaches a method for accessing a well system, comprising:
placing a multilateral junction (Fig 4, see elements of y-block below) proximate an intersection (Fig 4, junction seen) between a main wellbore (Fig 4, main wellbore 12 and 18) and a lateral wellbore (Fig 4, lateral 16) using a running tool (Fig 3, running tool 500), the multilateral junction including;
a y-block (Fig 4, block/junction 40, 42, 44), the y-block including;
a housing (Fig 4, housing 40) having a first end and a second opposing end (Fig 4, uphole/downhole end, respectively);
a single first bore extending into the housing from the first end (Fig 4, bore on the upper end), the single first bore defining a first centerline (Fig 4, bore centerline of 40); and
second and third separate bores extending into the housing and branching off from the single first bore (Fig 4, bores 44 and 42, respectively, at their connecting point to 40, branching from the single first bore defined above), the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (Fig 4, bores 44 and 42, have respective center lines);
a main bore leg coupled to the second bore and extending into the main wellbore (Fig 4, main bore leg 44 within the bore 18 coupled to second bore at 40/44 interface, extending to main bore 12); and
a lateral bore leg coupled to the third bore and extending into the lateral wellbore (Fig 4, lateral bore leg 42 coupled to third bore at 40/42 interface, extending to main bore 12);
pulling the running tool out of hole after placing the multilateral junction proximate the intersection (Column 4, lines 4-6, “the deployment string 500 can then be disconnected from the landing tool 40 and removed to the earth's surface” this occurs after placement of 40 and the junction).
Ohmer is not explicit on the multilateral junction operable to handle at least 8,000 psi burst rate.
Wolf teaches the multilateral junction operable to handle at least 8,000 psi burst rate (Para 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention of Ohmer 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 10,000+ psi pressure.
While Ohmer teaches a variety of operations may occur following installation (Column 5, lines 19-20) and that after disconnecting and pulling the deployment string 500 “the remaining completion equipment is deployed in another downhole trip, resulting in two trips being performed to complete the well” (Column 4, lines 6-8), Ohmer is silent on the subsequent completion comprising the recited fracturing steps.
selectively accessing the main wellbore with a first fracturing string located at the y- block (please note this is a modification to Ohmer in which completion equipment is run an used after installation of the junction, Fig 17, main wellbore/lower lateral 34 is accessed via string 106 as must be the case to deploy it in the state seen; see Para 0058-0059, string is used for fracturing), the first fracturing string entering the first bore in the y-block and exiting the second bore in the y-block (Fig 17, Para 0058-0059, string 106 must enter the top portion i.e. first bore and exit second bore, as a modification to Ohmer);
fracturing the main wellbore through the main bore leg using the first fracturing string that has previously entered the first bore in the y-block and exited the second bore in the y-block (Fig 17, main wellbore/lower lateral 34 is accessed via string 106 as must be the case to deploy it in the state seen; see Para 0058-0059, string is used for fracturing; “lowermost, lateral wellbore 34 to conduct a fracturing procedure in which a plurality of fractures 108 are formed, as illustrated in FIG. 17”);
selectively accessing the lateral wellbore with a second fracturing string located at the y- block (please note this is a modification to Ohmer in which completion equipment is run an used after installation of the junction, Fig 22-23, upper lateral wellbore 34 is accessed via string 118 as must be the case to deploy it in the state seen; see Para 0062-0063, string is used for fracturing), the second fracturing string entering the first bore in the y-block and exiting the third bore in the y-block (Fig 22-23, Para 0062-63, string 118 must enter the top portion i.e. first bore and exit third bore, as a modification to Ohmer); and
fracturing the lateral wellbore through the lateral bore leg using the second fracturing string that has previously entered the first bore in the v-block and exited the third bore in the y-block (Fig 22-23, upper lateral wellbore 34 is accessed via string 118 as must be the case for the state seen; Para 0062-63, “fracturing fluid is pumped downhole through packer 116, through tubing structure 118, and into the subsequent, e.g. upper, lateral wellbore 34 to create multiple fractures 108, as illustrated in FIG. 23”).
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 Ohmer by having the completion steps including the fracturing steps as disclosed by Skeates because it increases productivity in tight formations (Para 0045).
Ohmer as modified teaches wherein after pulling the running tool out of hole, the multilateral junction remains positioned proximate the intersection during the selectively accessing the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore and the fracturing the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore (Column 4, lines 6-8, Ohmer, after disconnecting and pulling the deployment string 500 “the remaining completion equipment is deployed in another downhole trip, resulting in two trips being performed to complete the well” via the junction, which is left in the intersection; Para 0058-0059, 0062-0063 of Skeates, the main and lateral wellbores are accessed and fractured).
Regarding claim 2 Ohmer as modified teaches wherein the first fracturing string and the second fracturing string are different fracturing strings (Figs 17-23 of Skeates, separate strings 118 and 106).
Regarding claim 7, Ohmer as modified teaches wherein selectively accessing and fracturing the main wellbore with the first fracturing string occurs prior to selectively accessing and fracturing the lateral wellbore with the second fracturing string (Figs 17-23 of Skeates).
Regarding claim 9 Ohmer as modified teaches producing fluids from fractures in the main wellbore and fractures in the lateral wellbore through the y-block (Para 0064 of Skeates, Column 5, lines 1-8, Ohmer, production occurs through the y-block).
Regarding claim 17 Ohmer as modified teaches wherein the multilateral junction is operable to handle at least 10,000 psi burst rate (Para 0021 of Wolf).
Regarding claim 18, Ohmer teaches wherein the second and third centerlines are angled relative to one another (Fig 4, bores 44 and 42, respectively, at their connecting point to 40, have an angle. Note any angle meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 25, Ohmer as modified teaches removing the first fracturing string from the second bore in the y-block prior to selectively accessing the lateral wellbore with the second fracturing string (Fig 20 of Skeates, fracture string 106 before engaging to the selective access of Fig 22-23).
Regarding claim 26, Ohmer as modified teaches removing the first fracturing string from the first bore in the y-block prior to the selectively accessing the lateral wellbore with the second fracturing string (Fig 20 of Skeates, fracture string 106 before engaging to the selective access of Fig 22-23; note this is a modification to Ohmer).
Claim(s) 8 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmer (US 6732801 B2), in view of Wolf (US 20150376955 A1), in view of Skeates (US 20110024121 A1), in view of Fipke (US 20030221843 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ohmer as modified is silent on wherein selectively accessing and fracturing the main wellbore with the first fracturing string occurs after selectively accessing and fracturing the lateral wellbore with the second fracturing string.
Fipke teaches that fracturing/treatment of one lateral bore may happen before the other, or vice versa (Para 0040).
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 Ohmer by having the reversed order of operation as disclosed by Fipke because Fipke demonstrates that the order of operation is subject to the desirability of the operator’s choice and the particular sequence of steps does not impact the final product of having the plurality of bores fracked/treated (Para 0040), see also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Regarding claim 27, Ohmer as modified teaches removing the second fracturing string from the third bore in the y-block prior to selectively accessing the main wellbore with the first fracturing string (Fig 17-25 of Skeates, the fracturing strings are completely withdrawn before subsequent operations and only one fracturing is present in the well at a time; note this is a modification to Ohmer which teaches the structure of the y-block).
Regarding claim 28, Ohmer as modified teaches removing the second fracturing string from the first bore in the y-block prior to selectively accessing the main wellbore with the first fracturing string (Fig 17-25 of Skeates, the fracturing strings are completely withdrawn before subsequent operations and only one fracturing is present in the well at a time; note this is a modification to Ohmer which teaches the structure of the y-block).
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmer (US 6732801 B2), in view of Wolf (US 20150376955 A1), in view of Skeates (US 20110024121 A1), in view of Anders (US 9394778 B2).
Regarding claims 10-15, Ohmer as modified is silent on the recited diameters of the main bore leg and lateral bore leg or the recited diameters of first or second fracturing string.
Anders teaches a working string can have an inner diameter of 4 inches (101.6mm) (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 of Ohmer 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 system of Ohmer, as modified, it stands to reason that the claimed invention, as modified, would 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.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmer (US 6732801 B2), in view of Wolf (US 20150376955 A1), in view of Skeates (US 20110024121 A1), in view of Steele (US 9822612 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Ohmer as modified is silent on wherein the second and third bores overlap one another proximate the single first bore.
Steele teaches the second and third bores overlap one another proximate the single first bore (Fig 2, bores at reference numerals 41, 42, are proximate of the single first bore at the uphole end).
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 Ohmer by having the structural particulars of the junction as disclosed by Ohmer 648 because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the junction 40/42/44 of Ohmer) for another (the junction of Steele) to obtain predictable results (providing a junction to access different bores in a multi-lateral well).
Regarding claim 20, Ohmer as modified teaches 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 (Fig 2, Steele, shared wall/point not labelled, but the point at convergence of the bores at 42/41 come to a relatively sharp point).
Regarding claim 21, Ohmer as modified teaches wherein a shared interior wall of the second and third bores comes to a blunt stress relief point at a location wherein the second and third bores overlap one another (Fig 2, Steele, shared wall/point not labelled, but the point at convergence of the bores at 42/41 come to a relatively blunt point).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights