DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Prior Art Rejection- 35 USC § 103
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 28, the amendments to claims and the Applicant’s persuasive arguments overcome the prior art rejection of record; however, upon further search and consideration, the claims have been rejected under new grounds below.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 10, 11-13, 16-22 and 31, the Applicant’s arguments are moot due to the new grounds of rejection to claims 1, 15 and 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 28, the claims recite “each hydraulic chamber being…non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe” and there is in adequate written description support for this limitation. The phrase “non-rotatably fixed” is entirely absent from the specification as applied to “each hydraulic chamber”. Furthermore, the disclosure fails to describe or otherwise provide any structural details or mechanism demonstrating how the chambers are prevented from rotating relative to the base pipe. The only mention of “rotationally fix” in the disclosure is applied to the “downhole tool”, not the hydraulic chambers (discussed in at least pp[0038], [0045], [0053] and [0057]). While the specification may describe the hydraulic chambers being generally attached or “fixed” to the base pipe, this does not inherently convey to a POSITA that such an attachment is equivalent to “non-rotatably fixed”. The specification does not disclose whether the hydraulic chambers are threaded or welded or otherwise attached to the base pipe in a manner that specifically restricts rotation around the base pipe. Because the disclosure fails to describe the specific limitation of the hydraulic chambers being “non-rotatably fixed” to the base pipe, the claims fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-14, 16-27 and 29-31 are also rejected under this statute as the claims depend from claim 1, 15 or 28.
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.
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) 1-5, 8, 9, 14-18 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bruce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160326849) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831), Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370) and in further view of Yeh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20100200233).
In regards to claim 1, Bruce teaches an anchor for use (tool 110 contains sections 124 and 134 which expands to engage the wellbore wall, which in turn will anchor the tool 110; Fig.4a,b, pp[0245], [0246] [0249]) in a wellbore (Abstract, pp[0245]), comprising:
a base pipe (12; Fig. 2, 3); and
two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14;pp[0239], Fig. 2,3) disposed radially about the base pipe (12), each hydraulic activation chamber (14) being circumferentially spaced (the chambers 14 are circumferentially spaced; Fig. 2,3) to the base pipe (12), the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14) moveable from a first collapsed state (Fig. 2) to a second activated state (Fig. 3, pp[0239]) to engage with a wall of a wellbore (screen shroud 123/124 (equivalent to 24) expands outwardly as the chambers 14 are inflated such that both the screen 124 and chambers 14 engage the bore wall; Abstract, pp[0243], Fig.4a, b, 9a) and laterally and rotationally fix a downhole tool coupled to the base pipe within the wellbore (When the screen shroud 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be rotationally and laterally fixed within the wellbore; pp[0246], [0257], [0258]).
Bruce is silent regarding wherein the anchor is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque; wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Tooker, drawn to downhole tool comprising a tubular with screens, discloses that the screen is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque (the screen along the tubular 50 has a torque rating of 18,000 ft/lbs (24,404.72 Nm). Therefore, the screen can withstand 6,750 newton meters of torque; pp[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Bruce with the torque rating properties of Tooker so that the anchor of Bruce will be long lasting and provide trouble free service during wellbore operation (pp[0049, Tooker).
The combination of Bruce and Tooker is silent regarding wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Arsalan, drawn to a downhole inflatable packer, discloses that the packer is operable to withstand at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure (The first inflatable packer 103 is designed to withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) (344.73 bar) or more without rupturing; pp[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bruce and Tooker such that the hydraulic chambers can withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) or more so that the hydraulic pressure chambers do not rupture due to higher internal pressures (pp[0044], Arsalan).
The combination of Bruce, Tooker and Arsalan is silent regarding each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Yeh, drawn to a wellbore flow control system, discloses that the flow control system comprises axial rods (334; Figs. 5E, 5F) which are non-rotatably fixed to the based pipe (the rods 334 are welded to the base pipe 302; pp[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic activation chambers of the combination such that they are welded to the base pipe as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches that welding successfully secures the circumferentially spaced tubes on the base pipe (pp[0078]) in an analogous flow control system. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply this known securing technique to the hydraulic chambers of the combination to ensure that the hydraulic activation chambers do not shift or move during operation, thereby increasing structural stability.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Bruce further teaches including an expandable medium (24/124; Fig. 2-4b) disposed about the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14), the expandable medium configured to expand radially via the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (screen shroud 123/124 (equivalent to 24) expands outwardly as the chambers 14 are inflated such that both the screen shroud 124 and chambers 14 engage the bore wall; Abstract, pp[0243], Fig.4a, b, 9a) to fix the downhole tool within the wellbore (When the screen 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen shroud 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be fixed within the wellbore; pp[0246], [0257], [0258]).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 2.
Bruce further teaches wherein the expandable medium is an expandable non-filter medium (24/123 is a screen shroud used to cover a filter medium 122. When the screen shroud is in the closed form 140b, the slots 140 restrict fluid access from the exterior of the screen to the screen interior. Therefore, the in the closed form 140b, the expandable medium is a “non-filter” as it prevents fluid flow; pp[0243], [0257],[0258], Figs. 9a-10c).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Bruce further teaches including two or more bridging plates (strips 18; Fig. 2, 3) positioned radially about the two or more expandable chambers (12), wherein the two or more bridging plates (18) are configured to extend across at least a gap between outer portions of the two or more expandable chambers when the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are in the second activated state (When the chambers 14 are extended, the strips 18 bridge the gaps 20 formed between the chambers 14; pp[0240], Fig. 2, 3).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Bruce further teaches including a plurality of openings in the base pipe, the plurality of openings configured to provide fluid communication between the base pipe and the two or more hydraulic activation chambers to move the two or more hydraulic activation chambers from the first collapsed state to the second activated state (The base pipe contains a plurality of openings because the inflatable element may be inflatable by pressure applied internally to the tubing on which the inflatable element is mounted. The inflation medium may be fluid; pp[0018], [0021], [0147]).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Bruce further teaches including an elastomeric element (elastomer sleeve 134; pp[0245], Fig. 4A,B) positioned about the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (The elastomer sleeves 134 are disposed above and below of the portion 124 containing the chambers 14; Fig. 2, 3, 4A,B.
Note that the term “about” is very broad and does not specify the location of the “elastomeric element” with respect to the hydraulic activation chambers.).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 8.
Bruce further teaches wherein the elastomeric element is an annular elastomeric element configured as an annular seal (The elastomer sleeve 134 seals against the formation to allow flow of fluid from the formation, through the bore wall, and into the screen; pp[00248], [0249]).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Bruce further teaches wherein at least four hydraulic activation chambers are disposed radially about the base pipe (A rigid metal base pipe 12 providing mounting for six activation elements or chambers 14 which extend axially along the outer surface of the base pipe; pp[0239], Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 15, Bruce teaches a well system (10/110; Fig. 1-4B), comprising:
a wellbore (the system is used in a wellbore formation; pp[0128], [0129])
a downhole tool positioned within the wellbore (Fig. 1, pp[0242],[0246]); and
an anchor (124 and 134; Fig. 4A,B) coupled to the downhole tool (110) and positioned within the wellbore (110 used in a formation; pp[0246]), the anchor including:
a base pipe (12; Fig. 2, 3); and
two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14) disposed radially about the base pipe (12; Fig. 3), each hydraulic activation chamber (14) being circumferentially spaced (the chambers 14 are circumferentially spaced; Fig. 2,3) to the base pipe (12), the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14) moveable from a first collapsed state (Fig. 2) to a second activated state (Fig. 3, pp[0239]) to engage with a wall of a wellbore (screen shroud 123/124 (equivalent to 24) expands outwardly as the chambers 14 are inflated such that both the screen 124 and chambers 14 engage the bore wall; Abstract, pp[0243], Fig.4a, b, 9a) and laterally and rotationally fix the downhole tool coupled to the base pipe within the wellbore (When the screen shroud 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be rotationally and laterally fixed within the wellbore; pp[0256], [0257], [0258]).
Bruce is silent regarding wherein the anchor is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque; wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Tooker, drawn to downhole tool comprising a tubular with screens, discloses that the screen is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque (the screen along the tubular 50 has a torque rating of 18,000 ft/lbs (24,404.72 Nm); pp[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Bruce with the torque rating properties of Tooker so that the anchor of Bruce will be long lasting and provide trouble free service during wellbore operation (pp[0049, Tooker).
The combination of Bruce and Tooker is silent regarding wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Arsalan, drawn to a downhole inflatable packer, discloses that the packer is operable to withstand at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure (The first inflatable packer 103 is designed to withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) (344.73 bar) or more without rupturing; pp[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bruce and Tooker such that the hydraulic chambers can withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) or more so that the hydraulic pressure chambers do not rupture due to higher internal pressures (pp[0044], Arsalan).
The combination of Bruce, Tooker and Arsalan is silent regarding each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Yeh, drawn to a wellbore flow control system, discloses that the flow control system comprises axial rods (334; Figs. 5E, 5F) which are non-rotatably fixed to the based pipe (the rods 334 are welded to the base pipe 302; pp[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic activation chambers of the combination such that they are welded to the base pipe as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches that welding successfully secures the circumferentially spaced tubes on the base pipe (pp[0078]) in an analogous flow control system. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply this known securing technique to the hydraulic chambers of the combination to ensure that the hydraulic activation chambers do not shift or move during operation, thereby increasing structural stability.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in Claim 15.
Bruce further teaches wherein the downhole tool is a lower completion (sand screen joints 10/110 are part of a completion; pp[0210], [0237], Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in Claim 16.
Bruce further teaches wherein the lower completion includes production tubing (The completion includes tubulars with valve arrangements 30/130 for production fluid; Fig.1, pp[0242]) having a screen assembly (sand screen joints 10/110 with filter mediums 22/122) ).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in Claim 17.
Bruce further teaches wherein the downhole tool is coupled to a downhole end of the anchor (This is implicit because the tool 110 contains box-type connections 132 to connect to another tool 10/110 which includes anchor 124 and 134; Fig. 1-4B, pp[0244]), and further wherein the anchor is configured to laterally and rotationally fix the production tubing having the screen assembly within the wellbore (tool 110 contains sections 124 and 134 which expands to engage the wellbore wall, which in turn will anchor the tool 110; Fig.4a,b, pp[0245], [0246] [0249]).
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in claim 15.
Bruce further teaches including an expandable medium (24/124; Fig. 2-4b) disposed about the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14), the expandable medium configured to expand radially via the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (screen shroud 123/124 (equivalent to 24) expands outwardly as the chambers 14 are inflated such that both the screen shroud 124 and chambers 14 engage the bore wall; Abstract, pp[0243], Fig.4a, b, 9a) to fix the downhole tool within the wellbore (When the screen 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen shroud 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be fixed within the wellbore; pp[0246], [0257], [0258]).
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in Claim 25.
Bruce further teaches wherein the expandable medium is an expandable non-filter medium (24/124 is a screen shroud used to cover a filter medium 122; pp[0243]).
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in Claim 15.
Bruce further teaches wherein the wellbore is an open hole wellbore (the system can be used in an unlined bore section; pp[0238]).
In regards to claim 28, Bruce teaches a method for anchoring a downhole tool within a wellbore, comprising:
positioning a downhole tool (10/110; Fig. 1-4B), within a wellbore (110 is positioned within a formation; Fig. 1, pp[0242] [0246]), the downhole tool having an anchor (124 and 134; Fig. 4A,B) coupled thereto, the anchor including:
a base pipe (12; Fig. 2, 3); and
two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14) disposed radially about the base pipe (12; Fig. 3), each hydraulic activation chamber (14) being circumferentially spaced (the chambers 14 are circumferentially spaced; Fig. 2,3) to the base pipe (12), the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14) configured to move from a first collapsed state (Fig. 2) to a second activated state (Fig. 3, pp[0239]) to engage with a wall of a wellbore (screen shroud 123/124 (equivalent to 24) expands outwardly as the chambers 14 are inflated such that both the screen 124 and chambers 14 engage the bore wall; Abstract, pp[0243], Fig.4a, b, 9a) and laterally and rotationally fix the downhole tool coupled to the base pipe within the wellbore (When the screen shroud 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be rotationally and laterally fixed within the wellbore; pp[0256], [0257], [0258]).
Bruce is silent regarding wherein the anchor is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque; wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure; and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Tooker, drawn to downhole tool comprising a tubular with screens, discloses that the screen is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque (the screen along the tubular 50 has a torque rating of 18,000 ft/lbs (24,404.72 Nm); pp[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Bruce with the torque rating properties of Tooker so that the anchor of Bruce will be long lasting and provide trouble free service during wellbore operation (pp[0049, Tooker).
The combination of Bruce and Read is silent regarding wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Arsalan, drawn to a downhole inflatable packer, discloses that the packer is operable to withstand at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure (The first inflatable packer 103 is designed to withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) (344.73 bar) or more without rupturing; pp[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bruce and Tooker such that the hydraulic chambers can withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) or more so that the hydraulic pressure chambers do not rupture due to higher internal pressures (pp[0044], Arsalan).
The combination of Bruce, Tooker and Arsalan is silent regarding each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Yeh, drawn to a wellbore flow control system, discloses that the flow control system comprises axial rods (334; Figs. 5E, 5F) which are non-rotatably fixed to the based pipe (the rods 334 are welded to the base pipe 302; pp[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic activation chambers of the combination such that they are welded to the base pipe as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches that welding successfully secures the circumferentially spaced tubes on the base pipe (pp[0078]) in an analogous flow control system. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply this known securing technique to the hydraulic chambers of the combination to ensure that the hydraulic activation chambers do not shift or move during operation, thereby increasing structural stability.
In regards to claim 29, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the method as recited in Claim 28.
Bruce further teaches including an expandable medium (24/124; Fig. 2-4b) disposed about the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14), the expandable medium configured to expand radially via the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (screen shroud 123/124 (equivalent to 24) expands outwardly as the chambers 14 are inflated such that both the screen shroud 124 and chambers 14 engage the bore wall; Abstract, pp[0243], Fig.4a, b, 9a) to fix the downhole tool within the wellbore (When the screen 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen shroud 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be fixed within the wellbore; pp[0246], [0257], [0258]).
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the method as recited in Claim 28.
Bruce further teaches wherein positioning the downhole tool within the wellbore includes positioning a lower completion (sand screen joints 10/110 are part of a completion; pp[0210], [0237], Fig. 1) including production tubing (The completion includes tubulars with valve arrangements 30/130 for production fluid; Fig.1, pp[0242]) having a screen assembly within the wellbore (sand screen joints 10/110 with filter mediums 22/122) ), an further applying fluid pressure (pp[0147]) laterally and rotationally fixes the lower completion including the production tubing having the screen assembly within the wellbore (When the screen 123/124 is expanded, the slots 140 on the screen shroud 123/124 will be open such that there is more friction between the screen 123/124 and well bore wall when in contact with each other. Due to this reason, the tool 110 will be fixed within the wellbore; pp[0246], [0257], [0258]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bruce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160326849) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831), Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370), Yeh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20100200233) and in further view of Restarick (U.S. Publication No. 20030085038).
In regards to claim 6 , the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well cleaning tool of claims 5.
The combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh is silent regarding a second plurality of openings in the base pipe and a valve coupled to the base pipe that controls the first plurality of openings and the second plurality of openings.
Restarick, drawn to sand screen system, discloses a base pipe 212 with a plurality of second openings (Base pipe 212 has plurality of openings, some of which are a first plurality of openings and a second plurality of openings; Fig. 10) and a valve (sleeve valve 208) coupled to the base pipe (212) that controls the first plurality of openings and the second plurality of openings (sleeve valve 208 slides along base pipe 212 to cover and uncover the plurality of ports 214 which comprises first and second plurality of ports on the base pipe 212; pp[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh with the base pipe and sleeve valve system of Restarick in order to control flow fluid through the base pipe (pp[0040], Restarick).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Restarick teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 6.
In light of the above modification, the combination further teaches including a valve coupled to the base pipe, the valve having a first setting that closes fluid communication to the first plurality of openings and the second plurality of openings, a second setting that only opens fluid communication to the first plurality of openings, and a third setting that only opens fluid communication to the second plurality of openings (Restarick sleeve valve 208 slides along base pipe 212 to selectively cover and uncover the plurality of ports 214 on the base pipe 212. Therefore, there is a first setting, second setting and third setting because the sleeve is moved to selectively block the ports 214; pp[0040]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bruce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160326849) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831), Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370), Yeh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20100200233) and in further view of Aldaz et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20050016740).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Bruce further teaches wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers (14) extend along at least a portion of the length (lbp) (base pipe 12 providing mounting for six activation elements or chambers 14 which extend axially along the outer surface of the base pipe; pp[0239], Fig. 2).
The combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh does not teach that the base pipe has a length (lbp) at least 10 times a diameter (d) of the base pipe.
Aldaz, drawn to an expandable seal for sealing sections of a wellbore, discloses the tubing-based assembly 144a, b, c form a string extending hundreds or thousands of feet along the length of the borehole 100 (pp[0091], [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh such that the base pipes form a string extending hundreds or thousands of feet along the length of the borehole as taught in Aldaz in order to cover all of the producing zones in the wellbore (pp[0091], [0092], Aldaz).
In light of the modification above, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Aldaz teaches that the base pipe has a length (lbp) at least 10 times a diameter (d) of the base pipe (The diameter of the base pipe will only be a couple of inches such that it can fit within the wellbore and the length of the base pipe will be a couple of feet, as taught by Aldaz, such that the string of pipes can cover hundreds or thousands of feet along the length of the borehole. Therefore, the base pipe will have a length (lbp) at least 10 times a diameter (d) of the base pipe.).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bruce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160326849) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831), Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370), Yeh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20100200233), Aldaz et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20050016740) and in further view of Hopkins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20070256834).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 10.
The combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz is silent regarding that the length (lbp) of the base pipe is at least 2 meters long and a length (lac) of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 1.5 meters long.
Hopkins, drawn to downhole well screen, discloses that the length (lbp) of the base pipe is at least 2 meters long and a length (lac) of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 1.5 meters long (particle screen assembly 10 can be assembled along the length of the base pipe 10 in sections of a given length, for example, in four foot, nine foot, or 42 foot sections and lengths for a base pipe are 20, 30 or 40 feet, although shorter or longer lengths are of course possible; pp[0045])
Therefore, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz such that the length of the base pipe is at least 2 meters long and a length of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 1.5 meters long since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the base pipe the and screen assembly is long enough to cover the hydrocarbon zones.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 10.
The combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz is silent regarding the length (lbp) of the base pipe is at least 4 meters long and a length (lac) of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 3 meters long.
Hopkins, drawn to downhole well screen, discloses that the length (lbp) of the base pipe is at least 4 meters long and a length (lac) of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 3 meters long(particle screen assembly 10 can be assembled along the length of the base pipe 10 in sections of a given length, for example, in four foot, nine foot, or 42 foot sections and lengths for a base pipe are 20, 30 or 40 feet, although shorter or longer lengths are of course possible; pp[0045])
Therefore, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz such that the length of the base pipe is at least 4 meters long and a length of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 3 meters long since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the base pipe the and screen assembly is long enough to cover the hydrocarbon zones.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bruce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160326849) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831), Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370), Yeh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20100200233), Aldaz et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20050016740) and in further view of Grubert et al (U.S. Publication No. 20150292294).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz teaches the anchor as recited in Claim 10.
The combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz is silent regarding wherein the length (lbp) of the base pipe is at least 10 meters long and a length (lac) of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 7.5 meters long.
Grubert, drawn to a zonal isolation apparatus comprising a gravel pack having sections of blank pipe intermediate selected sections of sand screen, discloses that the length (lbp) of the base pipe is at least 10 meters long and a length (lac) of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 7.5 meters long (the sand screen is each about 10 feet to 200 feet in length and the base pipe is about three feet to 50 feet in length; pp[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Aldaz such that the length of the base pipe is at least 10 meters long and a length of the two or more hydraulic activation chambers is at least 7.5 meters long since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the base pipe the and screen assembly is long enough to cover the hydrocarbon zones.
Claim(s) 19, 21, 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160326849) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831), Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370), Yeh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20100200233) and in further view of Schultz et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20110036576).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the well system as recited in Claim 15.
Bruce teaches wherein the wellbore is a main wellbore, and further including a lateral wellbore extending from the main wellbore (A main and lateral borehole is implicit because the tool 10/110 can be used in milled casing windows or multi-lateral junctions; pp[0049], [0259]).
The combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh is silent regarding wherein the downhole tool forms at least a portion of a multilateral junction positioned proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore.
Schultz, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system, wherein the downhole tool forms at least a portion of a multilateral junction positioned proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore (the junction 132 between the first leg 136 of the wellbore and the second leg 138 of the wellbore has a screen 154 and an inflatable packer 126; Fig. 1, pp[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh with the screen and inflatable packer that is positioned at the junction, as taught by Schultz in order to enable controlled production from the laterals.
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Schultz teaches the well system as recited in Claim 19.
Bruce further teaches wherein the downhole tool forms at least a portion of a first multilateral junction (A main and lateral borehole is implicit because the tool 10/110 can be used in milled casing windows or multi-lateral junctions; pp[0049], [0259]), the anchor is a first anchor and the lateral wellbore is a first lateral wellbore, and further including: a second downhole tool positioned within the wellbore; and a second anchor coupled to the second downhole tool and positioned within the wellbore, the second anchor including; a second base pipe; and a second set of two or more hydraulic activation chambers disposed radially about the second base pipe, the second set of two or more hydraulic activation chambers configured to move from the first collapsed state to the second activated state to engage with the wall of the wellbore and laterally and rotationally fix the second downhole tool within the wellbore (A completion string can be made of a plurality of tools 10. Therefore, at least a second anchor, a second base pipe and a second set of two or more hydraulic activation chambers is implicit as the tool 10 includes all of these features; Fig. 1-3)
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Schultz teaches the well system as recited in Claim 21.
The combination of Bruce, Read, Arsalan, Yeh and Schultz is silent regarding wherein the second downhole tool forms at least a portion of a second multilateral junction positioned proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and a second lateral wellbore
Schultz, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system, discloses that the downhole tool forms at least a portion of a multilateral junction positioned proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore (the junction 132 between the first leg 136 of the wellbore and the second leg 138 of the wellbore has a screen 154 and an inflatable packer 126; Fig. 1, pp[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan, Yeh and Schultz with the screen and inflatable packer that is positioned at the junction, as taught by Schultz in order to enable controller production from the laterals.
In light of the modification above, the combination of Bruce, Read, Arsalan, Yeh and Schultz teaches that the second downhole tool forms at least a portion of a second multilateral junction positioned proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and a second lateral wellbore.
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh teaches the method as recited in Claim 28.
Bruce further teaches discloses that the wellbore is a main wellbore, and further including a lateral wellbore extending from the main wellbore (A main and lateral borehole is implicit because the tool 10/110 can be used in milled casing windows or multi-lateral junctions; pp[0049], [0259]).
The combination of Bruce, Tooker and Arsalan is silent regarding positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore includes positioning a downhole tool forming at least a portion of a multilateral junction proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore.
Schultz, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system, discloses positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore includes positioning a downhole tool forming at least a portion of a multilateral junction proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore (the junction 132 between the first leg 136 of the wellbore and the second leg 138 of the wellbore has a screen 154 and an inflatable packer 126; Fig. 1, pp[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bruce, Tooker, Arsalan and Yeh with the screen and inflatable packer that is positioned at the junction, as taught by Schultz in order to enable controlled production from the laterals.
Claim(s) 15-20, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (U.S. Patent No. 5697445) in view of Tooker (U.S. Publication No. 20110146831) and in further view of Arsalan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190376370) and in further view of Koloy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20090179383).
In regards to claim 15, Graham teaches a well system (system 10; Figs. 9-12), comprising:
a wellbore (18);
a downhole tool (66) positioned within the wellbore (18); and
an anchor (setting packers 76, 82, 94) coupled to the downhole tool and positioned within the wellbore (Fig. 9), the anchor including:
a base pipe (74; Fig. 9); and
two or more hydraulic activation chambers (inflatable setting packers 76, 82 and 96 are all hydraulically inflatable; Fig. 9, 10, Col. 11 lines 61 and 65, Col. 12 lines 10-11) disposed radially about the base pipe (66) each hydraulic activation chamber being circumferentially spaced to the base pipe (inflatable setting packers 76, 82 and 96 are axially spaced along the circumference of the tubular base pipe 66), the two or more hydraulic activation chambers configured to move from a first collapsed state (Fig. 9) to a second activated state (Fig. 10) to engage with a wall of the wellbore (18; Fig. 10) and laterally and rotationally fix the downhole tool within the wellbore (packers 76, 82, 94 are inflated to permanently anchor the lower production liner assembly 66 in proper alignment within well casing 18; Col. 12, lines 40-46).
Graham is silent regarding herein the anchor is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque; wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Tooker, drawn to downhole tool comprising a tubular with screens, discloses that the screen is configured to resist 6,750 newton meters of torque (the screen along the tubular 50 has a torque rating of 18,000 ft/lbs; pp[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Graham with the torque rating properties of Tooker so that the anchor of Graham will be long lasting and provide trouble free service during wellbore operation (pp[0049, Tooker).
The combination of Graham and Tooker is silent regarding wherein the two or more hydraulic activation chambers are operable to handle at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure and each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Arsalan, drawn to a downhole inflatable packer, discloses that the packer is operable to withstand at least 27.6 Bar of internal pressure (The first inflatable packer 103 is designed to withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) or more without rupturing; pp[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Graham and Tooker such that the hydraulic chambers can withstand pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) or more so that the hydraulic pressure chambers do not rupture due to higher internal pressures (pp[0044], Arsalan).
The combination of Graham, Tooker and Arsalan is silent regarding each hydraulic activation chamber being non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe.
Koloy, drawn to an expandable packer assembly, discloses a packer (10; Fog. 1,2, pp[0024], [0026]) that is non-rotatably fixed to the base pipe (the seal element 26 is molded to or adhesively bonded onto the base pipe 30; pp[0033], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inflatable packers of the combination of Graham, Tooker and Arsalan such that they are molded or bonded to the base pipe, as taught by Koloy, as this would ensure that the inflatable packers of the combination do not shift or move from the base pipe during operation, thereby increasing structural stability.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy teaches the well system as recited in Claim 15.
Graham further teaches wherein the downhole tool is a lower completion (a lower production liner assembly 66; Col. 11, lines 53-54)
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy teaches the well system as recited in Claim 16.
Graham further teaches wherein the lower completion includes production tubing having a screen assembly (a sand control/filter sleeve encasement 80; Fig. 9, 10, Col. 11, line 64).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy teaches the well system as recited in Claim 17.
Graham further teaches wherein the downhole tool (66) is coupled to a downhole end of the anchor (ends at 76, 82), and further wherein the anchor is configured to laterally and rotationally fix the production tubing having the screen assembly within the wellbore (packers 76, 82, 94 are inflated to permanently anchor the lower production liner assembly 66, which includes the sand control/filter sleeve encasement 80, in proper alignment within well casing 18; Col. 12, lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy further teaches he well system as recited in Claim 15.
Graham further teaches wherein the wellbore is a main wellbore (18 is a main wellbore; Fig. 9), and further including a lateral wellbore (24) extending from the main wellbore (18), wherein the downhole tool (66) forms at least a portion of a multilateral junction (66 forms a portion of the junction of the lower lateral 24 and the vertical portion of well 18; Fig. 9) positioned proximate an intersection between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore (Fig. 9).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy further teaches the well system as recited in Claim 19.
Graham further teaches wherein the downhole tool is a whipstock (The diverter assembly 126 is part of the tool 66 because the diverter assembly 126 is latched to the inner portion of 66 via the orientation guide key 136 which engages liner orientation guide slot in seal bore/latch down profile collar 90 of the lower production liner 66; Col. 13 lines 66-67, Col. 14 lines 1-3), the anchor laterally and rotationally fixing the whipstock within the wellbore (When the diverter 126 is latched to the liner 66, the inflation of the packers 76, 82, 94 will anchor the diverter in the wellbore; Col. 12, lines 40-46.).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy teaches the well system as recited in Claim 19.
Graham further teaches wherein the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore have a similar open hole diameter (The main and lateral well bore are similar in diameter as both wellbores will allow the same tool to maneuver through the main well bore in order to re-enter the lateral wellbore; Col. 14, line 4-8, Fig. 13).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Graham, Tooker, Arsalan and Koloy teaches the well system as recited in Claim 20.
Graham further teaches wherein the whipstock includes a through bore extending entirely there through (bore 142; Fig. 12, 13).
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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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 on (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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights