DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 1/16/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1-23 are pending and are examined hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11-13, 15, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fripp et al. (US 20210332673).
Regarding claim 1: Fripp discloses a multilateral junction (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a y-block, the y-block including a housing having a first end and a second opposing end (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a single first bore extending into the housing from the first end, the single first bore defining a first centerline and second and third separate bores extending into the housing and branching off from the single first bore (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a mainbore leg coupled to the second bore for extending into the main wellbore and the mainbore leg and the second bore defining a second overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a lateral bore leg coupled to the third bore for extending into the lateral wellbore and the lateral bore leg and the third bore defining a third overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses that at least one of the mainbore legs extend at least partially within the second bore to define the second overlapping space or that the lateral bore leg extends at least partially within the third bore to define the third overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses an expanded metal joint (Figs. 1B-3 - joint around element numbers 28) located in at least a portion of the second overlapping space of the mainbore leg that extends at least partially within the second bore or the third overlapping space of the lateral bore leg that extends at least partially within the third bore (Fig. 1B; abstr.; [0007]-[0009]). Fripp discloses the expanded metal joint comprising a metal that has expanded in response to hydrolysis (abstr.; [0012], [0021]).
Regarding claim 2: Fripp discloses that the expanded metal joint is a lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint located in at least a portion of the third overlapping space (Figs. 1B-3; abstr.; [0007]-[0012]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15: Fripp discloses a main wellbore leg expanded metal joint located in at least a portion of the second overlapping space, the main wellbore leg expanded metal joint comprising the metal that has expanded in response to hydrolysis (Figs. 1B-3; abstr.; [0007]-[0012], [0021]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17: Fripp discloses that the lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint is a first lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint, and further including a second lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint located in at least a portion of the third overlapping space, the second lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint comprising the metal that has expanded in response to hydrolysis (Figs. 1B-3; abstr.; [0007]-[0012], [0021]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20: Fripp discloses that the expanded metal joint is a single step expanded metal joint (Figs. 1B-3).
Regarding claim 12: Fripp discloses a method for deploying a multilateral junction (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses providing a y-block, the y-block including a housing having a first end and a second opposing end a single first bore extending into the housing from the first end (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses the single first bore defining a first centerline and second and third separate bores extending into the housing and branching off from the single first bore (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses attaching a mainbore leg to the second bore for extending into the main wellbore, the mainbore leg and the second bore defining a second overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0007]-[0009]).Fripp discloses attaching a lateral bore leg to the third bore for extending into the lateral wellbore, the lateral bore leg and the third bore defining a third overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0007]-[0009]).Fripp discloses that the third overlapping space has an electrically conductive lateral wellbore leg pre-expansion joint located at least partially therein (Fig. 1B; [0007]-[0009], [0011]). Fripp discloses the electrically conductive lateral wellbore leg pre-expansion joint comprising a metal configured to expand in response to hydrolysis (Fig. 1B; abstr.; [0008], [0011]-[0012], [0021]). Fripp discloses subjecting the electrically conductive lateral wellbore leg pre-expansion joint to an activation fluid to expand the metal in the third overlapping space and thereby form a lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint in the third overlapping space (Figs. 1B-3; abstr.; [0007]-[0012], [0021]).
Regarding claim 13: Fripp discloses positioning the multilateral junction including the lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint downhole (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 21: Fripp discloses a well system comprising a wellbore, production tubing positioned within the wellbore, a multilateral junction (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses the multilateral junction including a y-block, the y-block including a housing having a first end and a second opposing end (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a single first bore extending into the housing from the first end, the single first bore defining a first centerline and second and third separate bores extending into the housing and branching off from the single first bore (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses the second bore defining a second centerline and the third bore defining a third centerline (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a mainbore leg coupled to the second bore for extending into the main wellbore, the mainbore leg and the second bore defining a second overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses a lateral bore leg coupled to the third bore for extending into the lateral wellbore, the lateral bore leg and the third bore defining a third overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses that at least one of the mainbore legs extend at least partially within the second bore to define the second overlapping space or the lateral bore leg extends at least partially within the third bore to define the third overlapping space (Fig. 1B; [0008]). Fripp discloses an expanded metal joint (Figs. 1B-3 - joint around element numbers 28) located in at least a portion of the second overlapping space of the mainbore leg that extends at least partially within the second bore or the third overlapping space of the lateral bore leg that extends at least partially within the third bore (Fig. 1B; abstr.; [0007]-[0009]). Fripp discloses the expanded metal joint comprising a metal that has expanded in response to hydrolysis (abstr.; [0012], [0021]).
Regarding claim 22: Fripp discloses that the expanded metal joint is a lateral wellbore leg expanded metal joint located in at least a portion of the third overlapping space (Figs. 1B-3; abstr.; [0007]-[0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. (US 20210332673) in view of Steele (WO 2019125409).
Fripp discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Fripp does not disclose that the lateral bore leg is a D- shaped tube. Steele teaches that the lateral leg 96 may have a circular cross-section or may have a D-shaped cross-section (see paragraph 52). As both Fripp and Steele disclose lateral tubular legs, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the circular tubular of Fripp with the D-shaped tube of Steele as Steele teaches the shapes are known substitutions for one another and for the predictable result of providing a tubular in the lateral borehole.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. (US 20210332673) in view of Fripp (US 20210032980 – “Fripp2”).
Fripp discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claims 10 and 19: Fripp does not disclose the amount of metal that reacts. Fripp2 discloses not exposing all the metallic seal to a reacting fluid in order to later expose them to a reacting fluid to allow the seal to self-heal ([0017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seal of Fripp by leaving residual expandable metal therein as taught by Fripp2 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a seal which is capable of self-healing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-9, 16, 18, and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Downhole multilateral junctions, including various requisite structure, lateral bore seals, number of lateral legs, and methods of installation and use are very well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Fripp et al. (US 20210332673), Fripp et al. (US 20210032980), Fripp et al. (US 20200240235), Steele et al. (US 11261708), Steele et al. (WO 2019125409), Cavender et al. (US 6907930), Steele (US 20170107794), and Robisson et al. (US 8490707). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to a multilateral junction, a y-block, multiple bores each having centerlines, a mainbore leg, lateral legs, that the mainbore leg extends into the lateral bores creating overlapping spaces, electrically conductive expansion joints, and expandable metal sealing joints that can expand due to hydrolysis. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the recited specific positioning and spacing relationships of the overlapping spaces and additional elastomeric seals with the expandable joints. Although it could be argued that as the various structures and components are well known in the art, the systems could just be modified and added to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, combinations, and steps which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures and processes. Further, the claimed structures and processes are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. The examiner finds that, at the time that the invention was made, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 1/16/2026 with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-23 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
The examiner appreciates the applicants’ discussion regarding the instant invention and the cited Fripp publication. However, it appears that applicants are merely cherry picking the Fripp figures to make their argument against anticipation.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 21, applicants argue that Fripp, as applied, fails to teach, disclose, or suggest an overlapping space, as that is presently claimed.
The examiner disagrees with applicants’ analysis and conclusion. Fripp clearly discloses various bores, legs and overlaps that clearly disclose the broadly as-recited claims.
Applicants argue that secondary references, Steele, and Fripp2, fail to disclose the elements of claims 1, 12, and 21. However, Steele and Fripp2 were not cited for the disclosure of claims 1, 12, and 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
2/11/2026