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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires the wireline to extend through the production branch of the Y-tool. However, claim 1 also requires the wireline to pass through the Y-plug in the bypass branch. It is not possible for the wireline to be in both branches at the same time. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “a wireline extending from the surface location through the production tubing and the bypass branch of the Y-tool assembly” (i.e., not through the production branch).
Claims 9-11 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider (US 5,099,919).
With respect to claim 12: Schneider discloses a method of releasing a Y-plug (50) from a bypass branch (28) of a Y- tool assembly (20), the method comprising:
reducing a force required to unseat the Y-plug from the bypass branch to below a safety threshold tensile force defined by a wireline (34; Col. 3, line 23-Col. 4, line 7; the hammer, 80, reduces the force needed to be used by the wireline and the wireline does not break so the force is below the safety threshold);
engaging an intervention tool (36, 80) coupled to a lower end of the wireline (Figs. 1-3, 5) with an underside of the Y-plug (Col. 3, lines 53-65); and
tensioning the wireline to thereby convey the Y-plug and the intervention tool out of the Y-tool assembly (Col. 1, lines 44-50; Col. 4, lines 3-7; Figs. 1-3, 5; the Y-plug is suspended from the wireline so when it is removed the wireline is “tensioning”).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 5,099,919) in view of Al Khalifah (US 2022/0243558).
With respect to claim 1: Schneider discloses a wellbore system, comprising:
production tubing (18) extending from a surface location into a wellbore (Fig. 1);
a Y-tool assembly (20) operatively coupled to the production tubing and including a production branch (branch connected to 22, 24, 26) having an electrical submersible pump (22) and a bypass branch (28) extending along and separated from the production branch (Fig. 1);
a wireline (34) extending from the surface location through the production tubing and the production branch of the Y-tool assembly (Vol. 1, lines 38-50; Figs. 1-3);
an intervention tool (36) coupled to a lower end of the wireline (Fig. 1-3);
a Y-plug (50) seated within the bypass branch (Col. 2, lines 63-68; seated on 30 in Figs. 1-3) and forming a circumferential seal with an inner wall of the bypass branch (Col. 2, line 63-Col. 3, line 22), the Y-plug including a sealed opening through which the wireline passes and forms a dynamic seal (Col. 3, lines 1-22; Fig. 5; little fluid passes so there is some form of seal and there is movement so the seal is dynamic); and
a release mechanism (80, 66, 74, 56) operable to reduce a force required to unseat the Y-plug from the bypass branch to below a safety threshold tensile force defined by the wireline (Col. 3, line 23-Col. 4, line 7; the hammer, 80, reduces the force needed to be used by the wireline and the wireline does not break so the force is below the safety threshold).
Schneider does not disclose the production branch has the ESP located inside of the production branch.
Al Khalifah teaches it is known in the art for a y-tool assembly (115; ¶ [0040]) to be operatively coupled to a production tubing (50; Fig. 2) and including a production branch (125) having an ESP (110) arranged therein (Fig. 2) and a bypass branch (130) extending along and separate from the production branch (Fig. 2). It would be obvious to ne having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the production branch of Al Khalifah for that of Schneider since doing so would perform the same predictable result of allowing an ESP to be lowered into a wellbore while also allowing logging tools to access downhole of the ESP (Al Khalifah ¶ [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 17 and 18 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.
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
With respect to claim 9: The art of record does not teach or make obvious the release mechanism includes a plurality of structures (i.e., legs) within the Y-plug that are selectively extendable against a ledge defined in the bypass branch in combination with the other claimed elements.
With respect to claim 17: The art of record does not teach or make obvious reducing the force required includes extending a plurality of structures (i.e., legs) from within the Y-plug against a ledge defined in the bypass branch of the Y-tool assembly in combination with the other claimed elements. The art does teach a release mechanism generically to reduce the force as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 19: The art of record does not teach or make obvious a plurality of structures (i.e., legs) that can be extended from the circumferential housing to function to reduce the force required to unseat the Y-plug from the Y-tool assembly in combination with the other claimed elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (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 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights