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 08/25/2026.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1 - 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument
The amendment filed 08/25/2026 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 amendment and arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims has been considered and found persuasive. The prior art rejections made in Final Office Action dated 03/06/2025 are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation: a two-part drilling and running tool. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a two-part drilling and running tool. It is unclear whether the two-part drilling and running tool is part of the drilling tool of claim 1 or constitutes a distinct component and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the Examiner reads a two-part drilling and running tool as the drilling tool.
Claim 10 is rejected for dependent of a rejected indefinite rejected claim.
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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in a first interpretation, as being unpatentable over Hepburn et al. (US2020/0173238) and Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615).
Claim 1. Hepburn discloses: A downhole tool (300, Fig. 4), comprising: a whipstock assembly (200, Fig. 4); a packer assembly (440, Fig. 4) fixedly coupled to the whipstock assembly (Fig. 4); an anchor assembly (450, Fig. 4) coupled to the packer assembly; a completion assembly including one or more wellbore screens (430, Fig. 4) coupled to the anchor assembly, wherein the whipstock assembly is configured to remain downhole after the anchor assembly and packer assembly are set ([0027-0029], Fig. 4) and further wherein the whipstock assembly is configured to subsequently position a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between a main bore and a lateral wellbore (710, Fig. 7).
Hepburn does not disclose: a drilling tool is released from the downhole tool, the whipstock assembly, packer assembly, anchor assembly and the completion assembly configured to be run-in-hole in a single trip
Donovan discloses a window milling system including a window mill having selectively retractable and extendable blades, and a whipstock assembly having a receptacle therein, the window mill being secured relative to the whipstock assembly the blades are received in the receptacle.
Donovan teaches: a drilling tool (18, Fig. 3) is released from the downhole tool the whipstock assembly ([0017]), packer assembly, anchor assembly and the completion assembly configured to be run-in-hole in a single trip ([0020]).
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 multilateral system of Hepburn by including a releasable drilling tool creating a one trip system as taught by Donovan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the number of trips in and out of the well as taught by Donovan ([0053]).
Claim 11. Hepburn discloses: A method for forming a well system (Fig. 1), comprising: forming a main wellbore (320, Fig. 4) within a subterranean formation (110, Fig. 1); positioning a downhole tool (300, Fig. 4) within the main wellbore, the downhole tool including: a whipstock assembly (200, Fig. 4); a packer assembly (440, Fig. 4) fixedly coupled to the to the whipstock assembly (Fig. 4); an anchor assembly coupled to the packer assembly (Fig. 4); and a completion assembly including one or more wellbore screens (430, Fig. 4) coupled to the anchor assembly, the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly (Fig. 4), setting the anchor assembly, and setting the packer assembly, while leaving the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly within the mainbore ([0027-0029], Fig. 4), positioning a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between the main bore and the lateral wellbore using the whipstock assembly that remained within the main wellbore (Fig. 5).
Hepburn does not disclose: a two-part drilling and running tool, and releasing the two-part drilling and running tool from the downhole tool after setting the anchor assembly and setting the packer assembly; using the released two-part drilling and running tool to form a lateral wellbore off of the main wellbore and then pulling the two-part drilling and running tool out of the main wellbore.
Donovan further teaches: a two-part drilling and running tool (18, Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) and releasing the two-part drilling and running tool from the downhole tool ([0017]) after setting the anchor assembly and setting the packer assembly ([0016-0023]); 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]).
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 multilateral system of Hepburn by including a releasable drilling tool creating a one trip system as taught by Donovan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the number of trips in and out of the well as taught by Donovan ([0053].
Claims 1, 11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in a second interpretation, as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of McNair et al. (US5,322,127) and 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 the whipstock assembly, packer assembly, anchor assembly and the completion assembly configured to be run-in-hole in a single trip ([0020]), the anchor assembly and packer assembly are set and a drilling tool (18, Fig.3) is released from the downhole tool ([0016-0023]).
Donovan does not disclose: a completion assembly coupled to the anchor assembly, the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly; one or more wellbore screens; the whipstock assembly is configured to remain downhole and further wherein the whipstock assembly is configured to subsequently position a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between a main bore and a lateral wellbore.
McNair discloses methods for improved juncture sealing including techniques for establishing pressure tight seals between a liner in the lateral wellbore and a liner in the vertical wellbore.
McNair teaches: a completion assembly (436 liner, Fig. 14C) coupled to the anchor assembly (436 is coupled to 432 anchor, Fig. 14C), the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly (432 is between 370 whipstock and 436, Fig. 14E);
the whipstock assembly is configured to remain downhole (Fig. 5A-5G), and further
wherein the whipstock assembly is configured to subsequently position a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between a main bore and a lateral wellbore (128 cemented liner positioned across 118 whipstock between 112 casing and 126 lateral, Fig. 5A-5G).
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 window milling system of Donovan by including a liner below the whipstock, leaving the whipstock downhole, and installing a multilateral junction as taught by McNair with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a multilateral completion system as taught by McNair (Fig. 5A-5G).
Donovan in view of McNair 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 substitute the liner of Donovan in view of McNair with the main bore screen as taught by Nygardsvoll (Fig. 1) with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a substitution would have created completion system composing of a screen 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 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; setting the anchor assembly ([0022]), and setting the packer assembly ([0021]), and releasing the two-part drilling and running tool from the downhole tool ([0017]) after setting the anchor assembly and setting the packer assembly ([0016-0023]); 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: a completion assembly including one of more wellbore screens coupled to the anchor assembly, the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and completion assembly; while leaving the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly within the main bore; positioning a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore using the whipstock assembly that remained within the main wellbore after the releasing.
McNair further teaches: a completion assembly (436 liner, Fig. 14C) coupled to the anchor assembly (436 is coupled to 432 anchor, Fig. 14C), the anchor assembly located between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly (432 is between 370 whipstock and 436, Fig. 14E);
while leaving the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly within the main bore (Fig. 5A-5G);
positioning a multilateral junction assembly at a junction between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore using the whipstock assembly that remained within the main wellbore after the releasing (128 cemented liner positioned across 118 whipstock between 112 casing and 126 lateral, Fig. 5A-5G).
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 window milling system of Donovan by including a liner below the whipstock, leaving the whipstock downhole, and installing a multilateral junction as taught by McNair with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a multilateral completion system as taught by McNair (Fig. 5A-5G).
Donovan in view of McNair does not disclose: one or more wellbore screens.
Nygardsvoll further 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 substitute the liner of Donovan in view of McNair with the main bore screen as taught by Nygardsvoll (Fig. 1) with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a substitution would have created completion system composing of a screen 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 McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: 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).
Claim 22. Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: 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, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in a second interpretation, as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of McNair et al. (US5,322,127), Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of Melenyzer et al. (US 5,433,275).
Claim 2. Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: the downhole tool and anchor assembly as recited in Claim 1.
Donovan in view of McNair and 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 McNair and 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 McNair, Nygardsvoll and Melenyzer teach: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 2, wherein each of the torque buttons includes multiple linearly aligned and spaced apart torque button portions (Melenyzer: 21 threads, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 4. Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: the downhole tool and anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Donovan in view of McNair and 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 12. Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: the method and anchor assembly as recited in Claim 11.
Donovan in view of McNair and 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, 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 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 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).
Claim 13. Donovan in view of McNair, Nygardsvoll, and further in view of Melenyzer teach: the method as recited in Claim 12, wherein each of the torque buttons includes multiple linearly aligned and spaced apart torque button portions (Melenyzer: 21, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 12).
Claim 14. Donovan in view of McNair, Nygardsvoll, and further in view of Melenyzer teach: the method as recited in Claim 12, 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: internal threads (44, Fig. 1) and mandrel threads (42, Fig. 1; see previously rejected claim 12).
Claim 16. Donovan in view of McNair, Nygardsvoll and further in view of Melenyzer teach: the method as recited in Claim 14, 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: 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in a second interpretation, as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of McNair et al. (US5,322,127), Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of McGlothen et al. (US 8,936,101).
Claim 7. Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: the downhole tool and anchor as recited in Claim 1.
Donovan in view of McNair and 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 discloses 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 McNair and 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, in a second interpretation, as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of McNair et al. (US5,322,127), Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of Hardy et al. (US 5,806,596).
Claim 8. Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll teach: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 1.
Donovan in view of McNair and Nygardsvoll does not teach: further including a fluid loss device positioned between the whipstock assembly and the completion assembly.
Hardy discloses 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 McNair and 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, in a second interpretation, as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of McNair et al. (US5,322,127), Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666) and further in view of Abbott (US 1,636,032).
Claim 9. Donovan in view of McNair, and Nygardsvoll teach: 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 McNair and 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 discloses 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 McNair and 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 McNair, Nygardsvoll and Abbott teach: the downhole tool as recited in Claim 9.
Donovan in view of McNair and 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al. (US2014/0251615) in view of McNair et al. (US5,322,127), Nygardsvoll et al. (US2013/0319666), , and further in view of Davey et al. (US 3,190,378).
Claim 20. Donovan in view of McNair, Nygardsvoll and Teale teach: the method, two-part drilling and running tool as recited in Claim 11 and conveyance.
Donovan in view of McNair and 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.
Davey discloses 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 McNair and 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 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. Guidry, Christopher, Pleasants, Charles, and Joseph Sheehan. "Merging Multilateral and Casing Exit Technologies to Increase Wellbore Junction Reliability by Reducing Rig and Openhole Exposure Times." Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, A (2011), teaches a multilateral whipstock system wherein the whipstock assembly remains downhole for subsequent installation of a junction.
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 8:00 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
Prosecution Insights