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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 13 and 18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “a corkscrew type lateral branch, it does not teach, disclose re leg and/or corkscrew type mainbore branch. For example, straight (e.g., not corkscrew), but its lateral bore leg and/or branch corkscrews around the mainbore leg and/or branch, Dyer's mainbore leg and/or branch and its lateral bore leg and/or branch are not both twisted relative to one another, as is claimed”
The COMBINATION of Lajesic and Dyer teaches that both the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic will be twisted around the first bore because the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic are lateral wellbores that extend from the first bore. Dyer teaches that a lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore (pp[0093]). As such, both the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic will be twisted
and the twisting of the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic.
The Applicant further argues “the well system of Dyer would not employ any y-block, with or without the twisted lateral bore leg, as to do so would comingle the injection fluid, production fluid, and monitoring device of Dyer. Note, the pending claims require that the ‘second and third separate bores extending into the housing and branching| off from the first bore,’ which in essence would commingle any fluid entering the y-block from either of the second or third separate bores at the first bore. Again, as shown in FIG. 3A of Dyer, reproduced below, each of the Lateral Production branch (e.g., Lateral A), Lateral Injection branch (e.g., Lateral C), and Later Monitoring branch (e.g.,. Lateral B) would, at best, include their own separate ‘leg’ and not legs coupled through a y-block as is claimed.”
The primary reference Lajesic already discloses a y-block and that the y-block of Lajesic comprises a lateral bore leg and a main bore leg. Dyer does not need to teach a y-block because Lajesic already discloses that feature. Dyer, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system comprising a main wellbore leg and at least one lateral bore leg, was only introduced to teach that it is known in the art that a lateral branch and a main injection wellbore can have a corkscrew relationship which allows placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg (pp[0093], Dyer). The combination is proper because both Lajesic and Dyer are drawn to multilateral wellbore systems and are therefore within the same field of endeavor.
The Applicant further argues that “Modifying Dyer to include a y-block (e.g., whether that y-block was the y-block of Lajesic, or another y-block of another downhole tool) would render Dyer unfit for its intended purpose…”
Dyer is not being modified. As clearly discussed in the rejection below, Lajesic is being modified by Dyer where the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic (which are both lateral wellbores that extend from the first bore) are twisted relative to each other. Dyer teaches that a lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore (pp[0093]). As such, both the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic will be twisted
and the twisting of the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection of claims 1, 13 and 18 will be maintained.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-7, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lajesic (U.S. Publication No. 20160290079) in view of Dyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20130081807).
In regards to claim 1, Lajesic teaches a multilateral junction, comprising:
a y-block (100;Figs.1A-2), the y-block including;
a housing (102) having a first end and a second opposing end (see first and second ends annotated in Fig. 2 below);
a first bore extending into the housing from the first end, the first bore defining a first centerline (see fig.2 below); and
second and third separate bores (see 2nd and 3rd bores annotated below) extending into the housing (702) and branching off from the first bore (see Fig. 2 below) , the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (2nd and 3rd centerlines annotated below) ;
a mainbore leg having a first mainbore leg end coupled to the second bore and a second opposing mainbore leg end (see mainbore leg, first and second ends annotated below); and
a lateral bore leg having a first lateral bore leg end coupled to the third bore and a second opposing lateral bore leg end (see lateral bore leg, first and second ends annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (annotated)
However, Lajesic is silent regarding the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg twisted with respect to the second bore and the third bore such that a first plane taken through centerlines of the second opposing main bore leg end and the second opposing lateral bore leg end is angled relative to a second plane taken through the second centerline and the third centerline.
Dyer, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system with a main wellbore with multiple lateral branches, discloses that it is known in the art for production wells to have a corkscrew geometry (A lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore; pp[0093]).
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 Lajesic such that mainbore leg and lateral bore leg are twisted, as taught by Dyer, because this twisted or corkscrew geometry will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg (pp[0093], Dyer).
In light of the above modification, both the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic will be twisted around the first bore, as annotated above, because the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic are lateral wellbores that extend from the first bore. As such, the twisting of the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 1.
Dyer further discloses the first plane is angled by at least ± 15 degrees relative to the second plane (If the corkscrew wellbore path takes even half of a turn around the main bore, there is a point where the plane at the bottom is 90 degrees offset than it would be at the top (If the bores are side by side, then one wraps even a quarter of a way around the other, the plane at the bottom is now 90 degrees offset; pp[0093]).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 1.
Dyer further disclose wherein the first plane is angled from ± 80 degrees to ± 90 degrees relative to the second plane (If the corkscrew wellbore path takes even half of a turn around the main bore, there is a point where the plane at the bottom is 90 degrees offset than it would be at the top (If the bores are side by side, then one wraps even a quarter of a way around the other, the plane at the bottom is now 90 degrees offset; pp[0093]).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 1.
Dyer further teaches wherein the first plane is angled by ± 90 degrees relative to the second plane (If the corkscrew wellbore path takes even half of a turn around the main bore, there is a point where the plane at the bottom is 90 degrees offset than it would be at the top (If the bores are side by side, then one wraps even a quarter of a way around the other, the plane at the bottom is now 90 degrees offset; pp[0093]).
In regards to claims 5, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 1.
Dyer further teaches that the mainbore leg has a length (Lm), and further wherein a twist of the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg relative to the second bore and the third bore occurs within a first 80% of the length (Lm) (The lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore. Therefore, the corkscrew is at least starting within the length since the start is essentially at 0 and at least some part of the twist will be within a first 80% of the length of the main bore; pp[0093]. Note that the claim does not specify the length or how many twists it has to undergo in that length. ).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 5.
Dyer further teaches that the twist of the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg relative to the second bore and the third bore occurs within the first 50% of the length (Lm) (The lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore. Therefore, the corkscrew is at least starting within the length since the start is essentially at 0 and at least some part of the twist will be within a first 50% of the length of the main bore; pp[0093]. Note that the claim does not specify the length or how many twists it has to undergo in that length.).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 5.
Dyer further teaches that the twist of the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg relative to the second bore and the third bore occurs within the first 30% of the length (Lm) (The lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore. Therefore, the corkscrew is at least starting within the length since the start is essentially at 0 and at least some part of the twist will be within a first 30% of the length of the main bore; pp[0093]. Note that the claim does not specify the length or how many twists it has to undergo in that length.).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 1.
Dyer further teaches when the second plane is positioned horizontally, the second opposing lateral bore leg end of the lateral bore leg is above the second opposing mainbore leg end of the mainbore leg (Because the lateral bore “corkscrews” around the main bore, there will be several locations along the main bore where the lateral bore is above the main bore; pp[0093]).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the multilateral junction as recited in Claim 11.
Dyer further teaches when the second plane is positioned horizontally, the second opposing lateral bore leg end of the lateral bore leg is directly above the second opposing mainbore leg end of the mainbore leg (Because the lateral bore “corkscrews” around the main bore, there will be several locations along the main bore where the lateral bore is above the main bore; pp[0093]).
In regards to claim 13, Lajesic teaches a well system, comprising:
a main wellbore (104; Fig. 1b,2, pp[0049]);
a lateral wellbore extending from the main wellbore (lateral bore 108 may extend into a lateral wellbore (not shown) drilled at an angle away from the parent or main bore 104; pp[0036]);
a multilateral junction (106; Fig. 1B) positioned at an intersection of the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore, the multilateral junction including;
a y-block (100; Figs. 1A, 1B, 2), the y-block including;
a housing (102) having a first end and a second opposing end (1st and 2nd ends shown below in annotated fig. 2);
a first bore extending into the housing from the first end the first bore defining a first centerline (shown in annotated fig. 2 below; and
second and third separate bores (shown below) extending into the housing (102) and branching off from the first bore, the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (2nd and third centerlines labeled below in fig. 2) ;
a mainbore leg having a first mainbore leg end coupled to the second bore and a second opposing mainbore leg end (shown below); and
a lateral bore leg having a first lateral bore leg end coupled to the third bore and a second opposing lateral bore leg end (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (annotated)
However, Lajesic is silent regarding the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg twisted with respect to the second bore and the third bore such that a first plane taken through centerlines of the second opposing main bore leg end and the second opposing lateral bore leg end is angled relative to a second plane taken through the second centerline and the third centerline.
Dyer, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system with a main wellbore with multiple lateral branches, discloses that it is known in the art for production wells to have a corkscrew geometry (A lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore; pp[0093]).
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 Lajesic such that mainbore leg and lateral bore leg are twisted, as taught by Dyer, because this twisted or corkscrew geometry will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg (pp[0093], Dyer).
In light of the above modification, both the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic will be twisted around the first bore, as annotated above, because the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic are lateral wellbores that extend from the first bore. As such, the twisting of the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic.
In regards to claims 14, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the well system recited in claim 13.
Dyer further discloses the first plane is angled from ± 80 degrees to ± 90 degrees relative to the second plane (If the corkscrew wellbore path takes even half of a turn around the main bore, there is a point where the plane at the bottom is 90 degrees offset than it would be at the top (If the bores are side by side, then one wraps even a quarter of a way around the other, the plane at the bottom is now 90 degrees offset; pp[0093]).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the well system recited in claim 14.
Dyer further discloses the second plane is less than ± 15 degrees relative to horizontal.
(If the corkscrew wellbore path takes even half of a turn around the main bore, there is a point where the plane at the bottom is less than 15 degrees offset, e.g. 10 degrees, than it would be at the top; pp[0093]).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Lajesic and Dyer teaches the well system recited in claim 13.
Dyer further teaches the mainbore leg has a length (Lm), and further wherein a twist of the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg relative to the second bore and the third bore occurs within a first 50% of the length (Lm) (The lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore. Therefore, the corkscrew is at least starting within the length since the start is essentially at 0 and at least some part of the twist will be within a first 50% of the length of the main bore; pp[0093]. Note that the claim does not specify the length or how many twists it has to undergo in that length.).
In regards to claim 18, Lajesic teaches a method for forming a well system, comprising:
placing a multilateral junction (106) proximate an intersection between a main wellbore (104; Fig. 1b, pp[0049]) and a lateral wellbore (lateral bore 108 may extend into a lateral wellbore (not shown) drilled at an angle away from the parent or main bore 104; pp[0036]), the multilateral junction including;
a y-block (100; Figs. 1A, B, 2), the y-block including;
a housing (102) having a first end and a second opposing end (1st and 2nd ends shown in annotated fig. 2 below);
a first bore extending into the housing from the first end, the first bore defining a first centerline (1st centerline shown below); and
second and third separate bores (2nd and third bores shown below) extending into the housing (102) and branching off from the first bore (2nd and 3rd bores branch from 1st bore as shown below) , the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (2nd and 3rd centerlines shown below) ;
a mainbore leg having a first mainbore leg end coupled to the second bore and a second opposing mainbore leg end (shown below); and
a lateral bore leg having a first lateral bore leg end coupled to the third bore and a second opposing lateral bore leg end (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (annotated)
Lajesic is silent regarding the mainbore leg and the lateral bore leg twisted with respect to the second bore and the third bore such that a first plane taken through centerlines of the second opposing mainbore leg end and the second opposing lateral bore leg end is angled relative to a second plane taken through the second centerline and the third centerline.
Dyer, drawn to a multilateral wellbore system with a main wellbore with multiple lateral branches, discloses that it is known in the art for production wells to have a corkscrew geometry (A lateral branch can be of a "corkscrew" type, which "winds" itself around a main injection bore; pp[0093]).
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 Lajesic such that mainbore leg and lateral bore leg are twisted, as taught by Dyer, because this twisted or corkscrew geometry will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg (pp[0093], Dyer).
In light of the above modification, both the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic will be twisted around the first bore, as annotated above, because the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic are lateral wellbores that extend from the first bore. As such, the twisting of the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg will allow placement of sensors to have detection points above, below, and at radial spacing from the mainbore leg and lateral bore leg of Lajesic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 17 and 19-23 are 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.
Conclusion
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
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights