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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed 01/16/2026.
Claims 1 - 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Argument
The amendment filed 01/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application.
Claims 5-6, 15, and 17-19 remain as objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims as set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 05/21/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims has been considered and are found not persuasive. The prior art rejections made in Non-Final Office Action dated 08/22/2025 remain and are repeated below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Donovan fails to teach a single trip installation of a whipstock, packer, anchor and completion assembly and that Nygardsvoll fails to teach the installation of wellbore screens, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 combination of Donovan and Nygardsvoll teaches all claimed elements. Donovan expressly discloses a downhole assembly comprising of a whipstock, packer, and anchor assembly coupled to a completion assembly configured to be run as a single unit ([0015-0023], Fig. 1-3). Thus, Donovan teaches a single trip deployment of multiple downhole components forming a unified assembly. Nygardsvoll expressly discloses a gravel packing assembly for multilateral wells, that includes one or more wellbore screens supported by an isolation packer within the main wellbore ([0016], Fig. 1). Thus, Nygardsvoll teaches wellbore screens installed downhole as part of a completion assembly directed to debris management.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination of Donovan and Nygardsvoll would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Both references are directed to downhole completion systems intended to improve well performance and operational efficiency. Modifying the single trip system of Donovan to include the wellbore screens of Nygardsvoll would have represented a predictable use of known elements according to their known functions. As recognized in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), it is proper to combine known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, even if the references do not expressly teach the combination. Single trip deployment of multiple downhole assemblies is a common operational objective in the art and is taught in numerous sidetrack and whipstock systems that consolidate multiple functions in one run. The result of combining these know elements would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill because each component performs its well-understood function.
Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or motivation to combine the references is unpersuasive. Applicant further argues that the prior art of Melenyzer et al., McGlothern et al., Hardy et al., Abbott, Teale, and Davey et al. fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claims 1 and 21. Examiner finds this argument moot as none of these references are taught to teach those limitations as discussed above. Therefore, the rejections are maintained as previously set forth in Non-Final Office Action dated 08/22/2025.
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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666).
Claim 1. Donovan discloses: A downhole tool (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a whipstock assembly (12, Fig. 1); a packer assembly (32, Fig. 1) fixedly coupled to the whipstock assembly ([0016]); an anchor assembly (34, Fig. 1) coupled to the packer assembly; and a completion assembly (38, Fig. 1; 38 is exposed to production fluid therefore considered a completion assembly) coupled to the anchor assembly, the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly (as illustrated in Fig. 1, the 34 is between 12 and 38), the whipstock assembly, packer assembly, anchor assembly and the completion assembly configured to be run-in-hole in a single trip ([0020]). Donovan does not disclose: one or more wellbore screens.
Nygardsvoll teaches a multilateral system comprising of a combination whipstock and seal bore diverter coupled to a main bore liner anchor/packer with screens extending into the main bore. Nygardsvoll teaches: one or more wellbore screens (20, Fig. 1).
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 window milling system of Donovan to include the main bore screen as taught by Nygardsvoll (Fig. 1) with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would have created a window milling system composing of a screen as a component of the completion assembly wherein the screen is coupled to the anchor for filtering the production fluids entering in the completion assembly and applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim 21. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll teaches: The downhole tool as recited in Claim 1, wherein the packer assembly is located between the anchor assembly and the whipstock assembly (Donovan: as illustrated in Fig.1, 32 is located between 12 and 34).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of Melenyzer et al. (US 5,433,275).
Claim 2. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll teaches: the downhole tool and anchor assembly as recited in Claim 1.
Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: a latch collet, the latch collet including: a collet body, the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers; and a torque button located on a radial exterior of each of the plurality of collet fingers, wherein a width (WTB) of each of the torque buttons is within 10% of each other.
Melenyzer teaches an anchor assembly comprising of a collet mechanism for affixing a tool within a well bore. Melenyzer teaches: a latch collet (collet mechanism; Col. 4, lines 42-46), the latch collet including: a collet body (38, Fig. 1), the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers (16, Fig. 1); and a torque button located on a radial exterior of each of the plurality of collet fingers (21, Fig. 1), wherein a width (WTB) of each of the torque buttons is within 10% of each other (any directional width of the bifurcated, threaded, longitudinally spaced, connectible portions or threads of the fingers appears to be identically dimensioned within the claimed range as needed for the intended use).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as made to simply substitute the anchor of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll with the anchoring system of Melenyzer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of anchoring the whipstock assembly in the main wellbore utilizing a latching mechanism as suggested by Melenyzer (Col. 3, lines 55-58).
Claim 3. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Melenyzer teach: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 2. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: each of the torque buttons includes multiple linearly aligned and spaced apart torque button portions.
Melenyzer further teaches: wherein each of the torque buttons includes multiple linearly aligned and spaced apart torque button portions (21 threads, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 4. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll teach: the downhole tool and anchor as recited in Claim 1. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: a latch collet, the latch collet including: a collet body, the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers, and a collet prop button located on a radial interior of each of the plurality of collet fingers, the collet prop button configured to engage with a profile of a mandrel for running the latch collet downhole, and configured to be propped radially outward by the mandrel to cause torque buttons located on a radial exterior of each of the plurality of fingers to remain engaged with associated alignment profiles in a latch coupling when positioned at an acceptable position downhole.
Melenyzer further teaches: a latch collet (collet mechanism; Col. 4, lines 42-46), the latch collet including: a collet body (38, Fig. 1), the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers (21, Fig. 1), and a collet prop button located on a radial interior of each of the plurality of collet fingers (44, Fig. 1), the collet prop button configured to engage with a profile of a mandrel for running the latch collet downhole (42, Fig. 1), and configured to be propped radially outward by the mandrel to cause torque buttons located on a radial exterior of each of the plurality of fingers to remain engaged with associated alignment profiles in a latch coupling (22, Fig. 1) when positioned at an acceptable position downhole (Fig. 2; see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of McGlothen et al. (US 8,936,101).
Claim 7. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll teaches: the downhole tool and anchor as recited in Claim 1. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: a latch collet including a collet body, the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers; and a mandrel positioned within the collet body, wherein the packer assembly is positioned axially between the collet body and the mandrel, the packer assembly configured to move from a radially retracted state when the mandrel and collet body are being run-in-hole to a radially extended state when the collet body has engaged with a latching profile and weight is placed down upon the packer
McGlothen teaches an anchor/packer apparatus for establishing a sealing engagement within a wellbore. McGlothen teaches: a latch collet including a collet body, the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers (446, Fig. 10); and a mandrel positioned (404, Fig. 10) within the collet body, wherein the packer assembly (400, Fig. 10) is positioned axially between the collet body and the mandrel, the packer assembly configured to move from a radially retracted state when the mandrel and collet body are being run-in-hole to a radially extended state when the collet body has engaged with a latching profile and weight is placed down upon the packer (Col. 12, lines 15-31).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as made to simply substitute the anchor and packer of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll with the anchor/packer system of McGlothen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of anchoring and packing off the whipstock assembly in the main wellbore by precisely controlling the setting process at a predetermined location as suggested by McGlothen (Col. 13, lines 14-17).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of Hardy et al. (US 5,806,596).
Claim 8. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll teaches: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 1. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: further including a fluid loss device positioned between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly.
Hardy teaches a one trip window milling system comprising of a whipstock, anchor, packer, and a valving apparatus for isolating the main bore. Hardy teaches: further including a fluid loss device (100, Fig. 1D) positioned between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the flapper valve of Hardy as part of the whipstock and completion assembly of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of effectively isolating the main bore for pressures above the whipstock assembly as suggested by Hardy (Col. 4, lines 37-39).
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of Abbott (US 1,636,032).
Claim 9. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll teaches: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 1, a drilling and running tool ( 18, Fig. 1 and 5) coupled with the anchor assembly (Fig. 1) and a conveyance (14, Fig. 1). Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: a smaller assembly coupled to an end of the conveyance; a larger bit assembly slidably coupled to the conveyance, the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly configured to slidingly engage one another downhole to form a combined bit assembly; and a one way mechanism coupled between the smaller assembly and the larger bit assembly, the one way mechanism configured to allow the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly to axially slide in one direction relative to one another and prevent the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly from axially sliding in an opposite direction relative to one another.
Abbot teaches a milling apparatus for creating a casing exit in a wellbore utilizing a milling assembly and a whipstock. Abbott teaches: a smaller assembly coupled to an end of the conveyance (21, Fig. 1); a larger bit assembly slidably coupled to the conveyance (5, Fig. 1), the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly configured to slidingly engage one another downhole to form a combined bit assembly (Col. 2, lines 93-99); and a one way mechanism coupled between the smaller assembly and the larger bit assembly (16, Fig. 1), the one way mechanism configured to allow the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly to axially slide in one direction relative to one another and prevent the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly from axially sliding in an opposite direction relative to one another (16, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as made to incorporate the smaller sliding assembly and one way mechanism of Abbott in the drilling and running tool of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of a combination drilling and running tool wherein the assemblies can slide in a one way relative direction of one another as suggested by Abbott (Col. 3, lines 9 – 29).
Claim 10. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Abbott teach: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 9. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: the one way mechanism is a wedge feature located in an annular space between the smaller assembly and the larger bit assembly
Abbott further teaches: the one way mechanism is a wedge feature located in an annular space between the smaller assembly and the larger bit assembly (16, Fig. 1).
Claim 11 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and Teale (WO 2019/194800).
Claim 11. Donovan discloses: A method for forming a well system (Fig. 1), comprising: forming a main wellbore (26, Fig. 1) within a subterranean formation; positioning a downhole tool (10, Fig. 1) within the main wellbore using a two-part drilling and running tool (18, Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) the downhole tool including: a whipstock assembly (12, Fig. 1); a packer assembly (32, Fig. 1) fixedly coupled to the to the whipstock assembly ([0016]); an anchor assembly (34, Fig. 1) coupled to the packer assembly; and a completion assembly (38, Fig. 1) coupled to the anchor assembly, the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly (as illustrated in Fig. 1, the 34 is between 12 and 38); setting the anchor assembly ([0022]), setting the packer assembly ([0021]), and releasing the two-part drilling and running tool from the downhole tool ([0017]); using the released two-part drilling and running tool to form a lateral wellbore off of the main wellbore ([0017, 0039]) and then pulling the two-part drilling and running tool out of the main wellbore ([0019]).
Donovan does not disclose: one of more wellbore screens, positioning a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore using the whipstock assembly.
Nygardsvoll teaches: one of more wellbore screens (20, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 1).
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 window milling system of Donovan to include the main bore screen as taught by Nygardsvoll (Fig. 1) with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would have created a window milling system composing of a screen as a component of the completion assembly wherein the screen is coupled to the anchor for filtering the production fluids entering in the completion assembly and applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Donvan in view of Nygardsvoll does not teach: positioning a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore using the whipstock assembly.
Teale teaches a whipstock apparatus used in multilateral completion for directing a completion assembly into the lateral wellbore. Teale teaches: positioning a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore using the whipstock assembly (Fig. 9, [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the multilateral junction of Teale between the main wellbore and lateral wellbore of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of using the whipstock assembly since the whipstock assembly can act as a deflector to guide the multilateral junction into the lateral wellbore as suggested by Teale ([0065]).
Claim 22. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale teach: The method as recited in Claim 11 wherein the packer assembly is located between the anchor assembly and the whipstock assembly (Donovan: as illustrated in Fig.1, 32 is located between 12 and 34).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666), Teale (WO 2019/194800), and further in view of Melenyzer et al. (US 5,433,275).
Claim 12. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale teach: the method and anchor assembly as recited in Claim 11. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale does not teach: a latch collet, the latch collet including: a collet body, the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers , and a torque button located on a radial exterior of each of the plurality of collet fingers, wherein a width (WTB) of each of the torque buttons is within 10% of each, and further wherein setting the anchor assembly includes running the anchor assembly downhole until the latch collet automatically engages with a latch coupling in the main wellbore.
Melenyzer teaches an anchor assembly comprising of a collet mechanism for affixing a tool within a well bore. Melenyzer teaches: a latch collet (collet mechanism; Col. 4, lines 42-46), the latch collet including: a collet body (38, Fig. 1), the collet body having a plurality of collet fingers (21, Fig. 1), and a torque button located on a radial exterior of each of the plurality of collet fingers (21, Fig. 1), wherein a width (WTB) of each of the torque buttons is within 10% of each other (any directional width of the bifurcated, threaded, longitudinally spaced, connectible portions or threads of the threads appears to be identically dimensioned within the claimed range as needed for the intended use), and further wherein setting the anchor assembly includes running the anchor assembly downhole until the latch collet automatically engages with a latch coupling in the main wellbore (22, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as made to simply substitute the anchor of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale with the anchoring system of Melenyzer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of anchoring the whipstock assembly in the main wellbore utilizing a latching mechanism as suggested by Melenyzer (Col. 3, lines 55-58).
Claim 13. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll, Teale and further in view of Melenyzer teach: the method as recited in Claim 12. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale does not teach: wherein each of the torque buttons includes multiple linearly aligned and spaced apart torque button portions
Melenyzer further teaches: each of the torque buttons includes multiple linearly aligned and spaced apart torque button portions (21, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 12).
Claim 14. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll, Teale and further in view of Melenyzer teach: the method as recited in Claim 12. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale does not teach: wherein the latch collet further includes a collet prop button located on a radial interior of each of the plurality of collet fingers, and further wherein positioning the downhole tool within the main wellbore using the two-part drilling and running tool includes positioning the downhole tool within the main wellbore as the collet prop buttons engaged with related profiles of a mandrel coupled to the two-part drilling and running tool
Melenyzer further teaches: the latch collet further includes a collet prop button located on a radial interior of each of the plurality of collet fingers, and further wherein positioning the downhole tool within the main wellbore using the two-part drilling and running tool includes positioning the downhole tool within the main wellbore as the collet prop buttons engaged with related profiles of a mandrel coupled to the two-part drilling and running tool (internal threads (44, Fig. 1) and mandrel threads (42, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 12).
Claim 16. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll, Teale and further in view of Melenyzer teach: the method as recited in Claim 14. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll, Teale does not teach: wherein the latch coupling includes: a housing having an outside diameter (OD) and an inside diameter (ID); and a plurality of axial alignment slots located along the inside diameter (ID) of the housing, wherein a width (WAS) of each of the plurality of axial alignment slots is within 10% of each other.
Melenyzer further teaches: the latch coupling includes: a housing having an outside diameter (OD) and an inside diameter (ID); and a plurality of axial alignment slots located along the inside diameter (ID) of the housing, wherein a width (WAS) of each of the plurality of axial alignment slots is within 10% of each other (upper mandrel (12, Fig. 1) with an internal thread profile (22, Fig. 1) where any directional width of the bifurcated, threaded, longitudinally spaced, connectible portions or threads of the threads appears to be identically dimensioned within the claimed range as needed for the intended use; see previously rejected claim 12).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666), Teale (WO 2019/194800), and further in view of Davey et al. (US 3,190,378).
Claim 20. Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale teach: the method, two-part drilling and running tool as recited in Claim 11 and conveyance.
Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale does not teach: a smaller assembly coupled to an end of the conveyance; a larger bit assembly, slidably coupled to the conveyance, the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly configured to slidingly engage one another downhole to form a combined bit assembly; and a one way mechanism coupled between the smaller assembly and the larger bit assembly, the one way mechanism configured to allow the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly to axially slide in one direction relative to one another and prevent the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly from axially sliding in an opposite direction relative to one another.
Davey teaches a combined drilling apparatus consisting of an inner sliding bit, a larger outer bit and a one way mechanism for allowing the inner bit to axially slide in one direction relative to the outer bit. Davey teaches: a smaller assembly coupled to an end of the conveyance (21, Fig. 3); a larger bit assembly (24, 25; Fig. 3), slidably coupled to the conveyance (30, 31; Fig. 5), the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly configured to slidingly engage (30, 31; Fig. 5) one another downhole to form a combined bit assembly; and a one way mechanism (30, 31; Fig. 5) coupled between the smaller assembly and the larger bit assembly, the one way mechanism configured to allow the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly to axially slide in one direction (31, Fig. 5) relative to one another and prevent the smaller assembly and larger bit assembly from axially sliding in an opposite direction relative to one another (30, 31; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as made to incorporate the smaller sliding assembly and one way mechanism of Davey in the drilling and running tool of Donovan in view of Nygardsvoll and Teale with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield the predictable result of a combination drilling and running tool wherein the assemblies can slide in a one way relative direction of one another as suggested by Davey (Col. 4, lines 36 – 39).
Regarding the limitation: and further including drawing the smaller assembly uphole to form the combined bit assembly after the releasing the two-part drilling and running tool from the downhole tool, Davey does not teach, however Davey does disclose disengaging the drill bit (21) from the shoe (24) and sliding the drill bit downhole independent of the shoe (Col. 4, lines 36-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reverse the sliding of the drill bit, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. in re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPC 400 (COPA L955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 15, and 17-19 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. See reasons for allowance in Final Office Action mailed 05/21/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hepburn et al. (CA3114610) teaches a single trip whipstock system comprising of whipstock, anchor, packer, and completion assembly including wellbore screens wherein a multilateral junction is installed in the mainbore and lateral.
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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM 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 at (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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676