DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US 2016/0145956 A1) (“Dahl”), alone.
Referring to claims 1, 11 and 21: Dahl teaches a method for forming a well system, comprising:
forming a wellbore 102 extending through one or more subterranean formations 104; and
positioning a downhole tool in the wellbore (FIG. 2), the downhole tool including:
a whipstock assembly 204;
a completion assembly 116 (¶ [0020]);
a fluid loss device 308 positioned between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly (FIG. 3); and
and anchor assembly [218, 220, 222 and unlabeled seal between 106 and 116] configured to engage with wellbore casing 106 to resist torque, the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly, the fluid loss device located between an upper most point of the anchor assembly and the whipstock assembly (FIG. 3).
While the anchor assembly taught by Dahl is configured to resist an amount of torque, Dahl does not specifically teach that the anchor assembly configured to resist at least 6,750 newton meters (Nm) of torque. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anchor assembly taught by Dahl to be configured to resist at least 6,750 newton meters (Nm) of torque with a reasonable expectation of success 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Referring to claims 3, 13 and 23: Dahl teaches the fluid loss device is coupled to the whipstock assembly (FIG. 3).
Referring to claims 4, 14 and 24: Dahl teaches the fluid loss device is rigidly coupled to the whipstock assembly, such that removal of the whipstock assembly from a wellbore 102 also removes the fluid loss device from the wellbore (FIG. 6; [0033]-[0035]).
Referring to claims 5, 15 and 25: While Dahl teaches removal of the whipstock assembly from a wellbore (FIG. 6; [0033]-[0035]), Dahl does not specifically teach the fluid loss device is removably coupled to the whipstock assembly, such that removal of the whipstock assembly from a wellbore leaves the fluid loss device within the wellbore. Since there is no criticality provided for only one connection between the fluid loss device and the whipstock assembly, namely either rigidly or removably, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the fluid loss device and the whipstock assembly to be removable such that removal of the whipstock assembly from a wellbore leaves the fluid loss device within the wellbore with a reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice.
Referring to claims 6, 16 and 26: Dahl teaches the fluid loss device is coupled directly to the whipstock assembly (by the FLD’s unlabeled housing; Figs. 2-6).
Referring to claims 7 and 17: Dahl teaches the fluid loss device is configured to be in a closed state when the whipstock assembly is being used to drill a lateral wellbore (Figs. 3-4; [0029]). Based on the fact that 308 prevents fluid loss into lower portions of wellbore 102, put another way, 308 prevents fluid loss in a downward direction, one can surmise that 308 would open for upward fluid pressure, such as fluid pressure created when running-in the device. However, Dahl does not specifically teach the fluid loss device is configured to be in an open state when being run in hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the FLD to be configured to be in an open state when being run in hole with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the system to be moved downhole into its operational position with less resistance from downhole fluid in that position, and fluid uphole of that position through which the system has to travel.
Referring to claims 8 and 18: Dahl teaches a running tool extends through the whipstock assembly [0029]. Dahl does not specifically teach a running tool extends through the fluid loss device, propping the fluid loss device in the open state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Dahl to include a running tool extending through the fluid loss device, propping the fluid loss device in the open state with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the FLD remains open and allows the system to be moved downhole into its operational position with less resistance from downhole fluid in that position, and fluid uphole of that position through which the system has to travel.
Referring to claims 9 and 19: Dahl teaches the running tool is a two-part drilling 202 and running [0029] tool.
Referring to claims 10 and 20: Dahl teaches a seal assembly 212 located along an outer radial surface of the fluid loss device. Dahl does not specifically teach including a seal assembly located along an inner radial surface of the fluid loss device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the FLD to comprise a seal assembly located along its inner radial surface with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide fluid and/or hydraulic isolation, which are very well known, and necessary, in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to the objection to the Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 24 and 26 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Dahl. Regarding applicant’s arguments that the anchor assembly taught by Dahl is not configured to resist at least 6,750 Nm of torque, as now required by the amended independent claims, the examiner agrees. Dahl does not explicitly teach such a limitation. But, as explained above, the anchor assembly taught by Dahl is configured to resist at least some Nm of torque and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify that amount as needed. Therefore, the remaining claims are all rejected under 35 USC 103, as further detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
10 March 2026