DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Objection to Specification
The Applicant argues that “Paragraph [0042] was amended to recite ‘Once positioned in the pocket 213, a cover 230 can (optionally) be secured over the inclination sensor 210 to enclose the sensor 210 in the pocket 213 with tension bolts 232.’ The addition of the phrase ‘with tension bolts 232’ is not new matter for several reasons. For example, the original FIG. 4B shows elements ‘232’ as securing the cover 230 onto pocket 213. While the application text did not originally include the elements 232, the original text clearly described the feature of ‘securing the inclination sensor on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts.’”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. The “tension bolt” is very specific type of fastener and was not originally disclosed in the manner as amended in the specification. The original specification discusses “securing the inclination sensor on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts” in pp[0021]; however, there is no discussion in this disclosure of using the one or more tension bolts to specifically secure the cover 230. In fact, the specification appears to disclose the “cover plate” (pp[0005],[0006], [0012], [0013]) and “tension bolt” (pp[0021]) as two distinct embodiments. The disclosure does not mention an embodiment where the “cover plate” and “tension bolt” are combined together. As such, there was no prior disclosure of the amendment “a cover 230 can (optionally) be secured over the inclination sensor 210 to enclose the sensor 210 in the pocket 213 with tension bolts 232.” As such, this is amendment is new matter and the objection will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicant argues that “The Office Action alleges that there is no support for the limitation of ‘securing a cover the inclination sensor on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts to enclose the inclination sensor’ as recited in this claim. Applicant respectfully disagrees. FIGS. 4A and 4B clearly show that the inclination sensor 230 is positioned in the pocket 213, which then covered by cover 230 that is secured over the inclination sensor by the fasteners, or tension bolts, 232…”
The Examiner acknowledges that element 232 is a fastener; however, there is no support in the original disclosure that discloses element 232 as being a “tension bolt”. The “tension bolt” is very specific type of fastener and was not originally disclosed in the manner as amended in the specification. The original specification very generally discussed “securing the inclination sensor on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts” in pp[0021]. There was no discussion of using tension bolts to secure the cover plate. The cover plate is discussed as “a cover 230 can (optionally) be secured over the inclination sensor 210 to enclose the sensor 210 in the pocket 213.” (para[0042]) and there is no discussion of using a “tension bolt” in this disclosure. Additionally, the specification appears to disclose the “cover plate” (pp[0005],[0006], [0012], [0013]) and “tension bolt” (pp[0021]) as two distinct embodiments. The disclosure does not mention an embodiment where the “cover plate” and “tension bolt” are combined together. As such, there was no prior written description that supports the limitation “securing a cover the inclination sensor on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts to enclose the inclination sensor” and the rejection of claim 18 will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant states that the amended limitations of “the inclination sensor is configured to be activated in a memory mode at the terranean surface, the inclination sensor is configured to measure a plurality of values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore and store the determined values of the angle in the at least one memory module for access subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface, and based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore.” Is not taught by the references of record, either alone in combination and further a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Firstly, the amended limitations raise numerous new clarity issues. The limitation “a decision is made” is unclear as it fails to clarify who or what is making the decision and by what objective criteria the decision is being made. It is unclear from the claims whether the “decision” is a mental step performed by a human or an automated function performed by a machine, e.g. a computer.
Furthermore, the boundary of what constitutes making the claimed “decision” has not been defined. More specifically, the claims recite that a decision is made “to run the milling assembly…or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore” based on values of angle; however, the claims fail to provide any structural or functional limitations in the claim defining when one structure is chosen over the other. Nonetheless, as best understood, Brown teaches the above amended limitations.
Bailey is already drawn to a side tracking/window forming operation using a milling assembly (three-in-one sidetrack mill 40; Fig. 5) and desires to perform subsequent drilling operation using a drilling assembly (conventional three cone rock bit) that is directed through the lateral wellbore after the lateral wellbore (sidetracked borehole) has been drilled (Col. 5 lines 12-16). However, Bailey fails to teach a monitoring system as claimed in order to monitor the angle between the main wellbore and the lateral wellbore to determine if the drilling operation requires the sidetrack mill 40 or deployment of the drilling assembly.
Brown cures the above deficiencies of Bailey because Brown discloses the amended limitations of an inclination sensor that is configured to be activated in a memory mode at the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface; pp[0130]), the inclination sensor is configured to measure a plurality of values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore (the sensor 188 is of a type which is suitable for providing trajectory data relating to the rathole 50. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10. Furthermore, the “values” of the angle comprises measurements from accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth); pp[0127]) and store the determined values of the angle in the at least one memory module (The processor 202 is powered by the battery 198, and stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]) for access subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface and verification is performed to confirm that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory; pp[0130]), and
based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore (following verification that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory, i.e. the desired inclination angle, suitable milling/drilling equipment would then be deployed into the well to complete the deviation procedure; pp[0124], [0130]).
Modifying the milling assembly of Bailey with the measurement assembly comprising the sensor and memory module of Brown would allow the ability to verify whether the lateral wellbore has extended at the desired inclination angle relative to the vertical wellbore and determine the next suitable equipment to be deployed in the wellbore (pp[0127], [0130], Bailey).This modification supports Bailey’s desire to perform subsequent drilling operation after the sidetracked borehole has been drilled (Col. 5 lines 12-16, Bailey.).
For the above reasons, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan still teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the combination teaches the limitations of claims 8 and 15 for the same reasons as claim 1. The rejection to claims 1, 8 and 15 will be maintained.
Specification
The amendment filed 05/01/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Pp[0042], last two lines: “tension bolts 232”. This added material is not supported by the original disclosure. The Examiner acknowledges that element “232” is a fastener; however, “232” is shown very generically in Fig. 4B and “tension bolts” is a very specific structure which was not originally disclosed in the specification. The Examiner suggests amending the specification to recite “fasteners 232”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, there is no support for the limitation “securing a cover on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts…” The specification only discusses “securing the inclination sensor on or to the tubular mandrel with one or more tension bolts” in pp[0021], but there is no discussion of securing a cover with one or more tension bolts in the original disclosure. Furthermore, the specification appears to disclose the “cover plate” (pp[0005],[0006], [0012], [0013]) and “tension bolt” (pp[0021]) as two distinct embodiments. The disclosure does not mention an embodiment where the “cover plate” and “tension bolt” are combined together. As such, this limitation is not supported by the disclosure and is new matter.
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 1-15 and 17-22 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite “based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore” which is indefinite. The limitation “a decision is made” is unclear as it fails to clarify who or what is making the decision and by what objective criteria the decision is being made. It is unclear from the claims whether the “decision” is a mental step performed by a human or an automated function performed by a machine, e.g. a computer.
Furthermore, the boundary of what constitutes making the claimed “decision” has not been defined. More specifically, the claims recite that a decision is made “to run the milling assembly…or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore” based on values of angle; however, the claims fail to provide any structural or functional limitations in the claim defining when one structure is chosen over the other. While the specification discusses specific values of angle such as “the angle between the vertical wellbore 8 and lateral wellbore 12 show a proper angle (for example, about 2-3 degrees), then a drilling assembly 300 can be run into the vertical wellbore” (pp[0044]), such disclosure are merely examples of the values of angle and language that’s not imported into the claims. As currently written, the specific angular requirements have not been clearly defined which leaves POSITA to guess what specific values of angle trigger the milling assembly versus the drilling assembly. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “values of angle” as any values of parameter(s) related to the “angle” between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore.
The claims further recite (or substantially similar to) “the inclination sensor is configured to be activated in memory mode at the terranean surface” which is indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear what is structurally and/or functionally required of the “inclination sensor” such that one can determined that it is now in “memory mode. The specification discusses “the inclination sensor 210 can be activated at the surface (for example, activated in a memory mode)” in para[0038] but does not define what “memory mode” entails. For examination purpose, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as data measured by the inclination sensor is recovered at the surface.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitations “based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module satisfying a threshold, making the decision to run the drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore” and “based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module not satisfying the threshold, making the decision to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore” which are indefinite. The limitation “satisfying a threshold” and “not satisfying the threshold” is very unclear because the claim does not define the boundaries of this ”threshold” and what parameter(s) is being monitored for this “threshold”. The claim fails to clarify what conditions would be considered “satisfying a threshold” versus “not satisfying the threshold”. For example, if an inclination measurement is 40 degrees and a preset target value is 25 degrees, would this satisfy the threshold or not? It is unclear what the “values of the angle” have be relative to the threshold, e.g. above, below or equal to the threshold, to meet either conditions of “satisfying a threshold” and “not satisfying the threshold”. Furthermore, the limitation of “making a decision…” is very confusing because it’s unclear if the claim actually requires the deployment of the drilling assembly / the milling assembly or not. The claim also fails to clarify who or what is making the decision and by what objective criteria the decision is being made. It is unclear from the claims whether the “decision” is a mental step performed by a human or an automated function performed by a machine, e.g. a computer.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17-20 and 22 are also rejected under this statute as the claims depend from claim 1, 8 or 15.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Patent No. 5657820) in view of BROWN-KERR (U.S. Publication No. 20210372219) (Hereinafter Brown) and in further view of Madhavan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20080159077)
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Bailey teaches a downhole tool (Fig. 5 illustrates a downhole tool), comprising:
a milling assembly (three-in-one sidetrack mill 40; Fig. 5) configured to couple to a tubular string (combination of 6 and 12; Fig. 6) and run into a vertical wellbore (the cased borehole 9;Figs. 8, 9) formed from a terranean surface (not shown but implicit) to one or more subterranean formations (Fig. 5 illustrates a subterranean formation through which the wellbore 9 is formed), the milling assembly comprising:
a tubular mandrel (41;Fig.5):
a first mill (42) coupled to the tubular mandrel (41) at a downhole end of the tubular mandrel (42 is at a downhole end of 41; Fig. 5) and configured to mill through a wellbore casing (8; Figs. 5, 7, 8) and form a lateral wellbore (28; Fig. 9): and
a second mill (44; Fig. 5) coupled to the tubular mandrel (41) uphole of the first mill (42) and configured to mill through the wellbore casing (8; Fig. 7,8, Col. 6 lines 37-41) and form the lateral wellbore (28); and
Bailey is silent regarding an inclination sensor mounted in or to a portion of the tubular mandrel separate from and between the first mill and the second mill, the inclination sensor configured to determine an angle between the lateral wellbore formed by the milling assembly from a window in the wellbore casing of the vertical wellbore and the vertical wellbore; at least one memory module communicably coupled to the inclination sensor, wherein the inclination sensor is configured to be activated in a memory mode at the terranean surface, the inclination sensor is configured to measure a plurality of values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore and store the determined values of the angle in the at least one memory module for access subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface, and based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run the drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore.
Brown, drawn to a whipstock assembly, discloses an inclination sensor (the sensor 188 is able to measure at least one parameter of the rathole 50. The parameter that is measured may relate to the trajectory of the rathole 50, and may include inclination and/or azimuth" pp[0121]. Fig.8, 13) provided in the milling assembly (pp[0133], Fig. 8),the inclination sensor configured to determine an angle between a lateral wellbore (50; pp[0127], Fig. 3-7) formed by the milling assembly (114) from a window (pp[0119]) in the vertical wellbore (10) and the vertical wellbore (the sensor 188 may measure both angular tilt (and so inclination of the rathole 50), as well as azimuth. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10; pp[0127]);
at least one memory module (processor 202; pp[0124]) communicably coupled to the inclination sensor ( processor 202 stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]), wherein
the inclination sensor is configured to be activated in a memory mode at the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface; pp[0130]),
the inclination sensor is configured to measure a plurality of values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore (the sensor 188 is of a type which is suitable for providing trajectory data relating to the rathole 50. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10. Furthermore, the “values” of the angle comprises measurements from accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth); pp[0127]) and store the determined values of the angle in the at least one memory module (The processor 202 is powered by the battery 198, and stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]) for access subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface and verification is performed to confirm that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory; pp[0130]), and
based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run the drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore (following verification that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory, i.e. the desired inclination angle, suitable milling/drilling equipment would then be deployed into the well to complete the deviation procedure; pp[0124], [0130]).
Therefore, 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 milling assembly of Bailey such that it included the measurement assembly comprising the sensor and memory module of Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify whether the lateral wellbore has extended at the desired inclination angle relative to the vertical wellbore and determine the next suitable equipment to be deployed in the wellbore (pp[0127], [0130]).
The combination of Bailey and Brown is silent regarding the inclination sensor mounted in or to a portion of the tubular mandrel separate from and between the first mill and the second mill.
Brown does disclose that although the inclination sensor and communication is provided in the mill of the milling assembly, the inclination sensor and the communication device may be provided in other parts or components of the milling assembly (pp[0133], Fig. 8). However, Brown does not specify where the inclination sensor may be provided in the other parts or components of the milling assembly which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Madhavan, drawn to a wellbore drilling system, discloses a directional measurement sensor (20; pp[0036]) that is mounted in or a portion of the tubular mandrel (the drill string as shown; Fig. 2) separate from and between the first mill (16) and the second mill (a bladed stabilizer 26; Fig. 2, pp[0032]).
Therefore, 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 location of the inclination sensor of the combination of Bailey and Brown such that it is disposed between the first mill and the second mill, as taught by Madhavan, as it would have been obvious to try this configuration for the inclination sensor, choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions of the inclination sensor being disposed in the drill bit or above the drill bit such that it’s between the drill bit (first mill) and the second mill, which would yield the same predictable results of obtaining inclination/directional measurements during drilling. 2141 (III)(E).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the downhole tool of claim 1.
In light of the above modification, Brown further discloses wherein the inclination sensor is configured to determine:
values a first angle between the lateral wellbore formed by the milling assembly from the window in the casing of the vertical wellbore and the vertical wellbore; and values a second angle between the lateral wellbore formed by the milling assembly from the window in the casing of the vertical wellbore and the vertical wellbore (The sensor 188 may comprise an accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth)to determine the angle of lateral borehole 50 relative to the main wellbore 10 during its formation to ensure 50 is being formed at a desired inclination angle. As such, there will be multiple values for each angle (i.e. a first and a second angle) to ensure that 50 is on the correct path; pp[0127]).
Regarding claim 7, Bailey further teaches comprising a third mill (46) coupled to the tubular mandrel (41) uphole of the second mill (44) and configured to mill through the wellbore casing (8; Figs. 5-9, Col. 6 lines 37-41) and form the lateral wellbore (28).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Bailey teaches a drilling system (Fig. 5 illustrates a downhole tool), comprising:
a whipstock (16) configured couple to a casing (8; Fig. 5) positioned in a vertical wellbore (the cased borehole 9; Figs. 8, 9) formed from a terranean surface (not shown but implicit) to one or more subterranean formations (Fig. 5 illustrates a subterranean formation through which the wellbore 9 is formed); and
a bottom hole assembly (40) comprising a milling assembly (40) configured to couple to a tubular string (combination of 6 and 12; Fig. 6) and run into the vertical wellbore (9) through the casing (11), the milling assembly comprising:
a tubular mandrel (41;Fig. 5);
a plurality of mills (42, 44, 46; Fig. 5), each mill coupled to the tubular mandrel (41) and configured to mill through the casing (casing 8; Figs. 5-9, Col. 6 lines 37-41) and form a window (20) in the casing (8) to a lateral wellbore (28) that extends from the vertical wellbore (9); and
a drilling assembly that is directed through the lateral wellbore (A subsequent sidetracking drilling operation would, for example, utilize a conventional three cone rock bit that is directed through the finished window 20 into the sidetracked borehole 28; Fig.8, 9, Col. 5 lines 12-16);
Bailey is silent regarding an inclination sensor mounted in or to a portion of the tubular mandrel separate from and between two of the plurality of mills, the inclination sensor configured to determine an angle between the lateral wellbore formed by the milling assembly from the window in the casing positioned in the vertical wellbore and the vertical wellbore; at least one memory module communicably coupled to the inclination sensor, wherein the inclination sensor is configured to be activated in a memory mode at the terranean surface, the inclination sensor is configured to measure a plurality of values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore and store the determined values of the angle in the at least one memory module for access subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface, and based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run the drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore.
Brown, drawn to a whipstock assembly, discloses an inclination sensor (the sensor 188 is able to measure at least one parameter of the rathole 50. The parameter that is measured may relate to the trajectory of the rathole 50, and may include inclination and/or azimuth" pp[0121]. Fig.8, 13) provided in the milling assembly (pp[0133], Fig. 8),the inclination sensor configured to determine an angle between a lateral wellbore (50; pp[0127], Fig. 3-7) formed by the milling assembly (114) from a window (pp[0119]) in the vertical wellbore (10) and the vertical wellbore (the sensor 188 may measure both angular tilt (and so inclination of the rathole 50), as well as azimuth. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10; pp[0127]);
at least one memory module (processor 202; pp[0124]) communicably coupled to the inclination sensor ( processor 202 stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]), wherein
the inclination sensor is configured to be activated in a memory mode at the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface; pp[0130]),
the inclination sensor is configured to measure a plurality of values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore (the sensor 188 is of a type which is suitable for providing trajectory data relating to the rathole 50. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10. Furthermore, the “values” of the angle comprises measurements from accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth); pp[0127]) and store the determined values of the angle in the at least one memory module (The processor 202 is powered by the battery 198, and stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]) for access subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface and verification is performed to confirm that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory; pp[0130]), and
based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, a decision is made to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run the drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore (following verification that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory, i.e. the desired inclination angle, suitable milling/drilling equipment would then be deployed into the well to complete the deviation procedure; pp[0124], [0130]).
Therefore, 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 milling assembly of Bailey such that it included the measurement assembly comprising the sensor and memory module of Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify whether the lateral wellbore has extended at the desired inclination angle relative to the vertical wellbore and determine the next suitable equipment to be deployed in the wellbore (pp[0127], [0130]).
The combination of Bailey and Brown is silent regarding the inclination sensor mounted in or to a portion of the tubular mandrel separate from and between the first mill and the second mill.
Brown does disclose that although the inclination sensor and communication is provided in the mill of the milling assembly, the inclination sensor and the communication device may be provided in other parts or components of the milling assembly (pp[0133], Fig. 8). However, Brown does not specify where the inclination sensor may be provided in the other parts or components of the milling assembly which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Madhavan, drawn to a wellbore drilling system, discloses a directional measurement sensor (20; pp[0036]) that is mounted in or a portion of the tubular mandrel (the drill string as shown; Fig. 2) separate from and between the first mill (16) and the second mill (a bladed stabilizer 26; Fig. 2, pp[0032]).
Therefore, 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 location of the inclination sensor of the combination of Bailey and Brown such that it is disposed between the first mill and the second mill, as taught by Madhavan, as it would have been obvious to try this configuration for the inclination sensor, choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions of the inclination sensor being disposed in the drill bit or above the drill bit such that it’s between the drill bit (first mill) and the second mill, which would yield the same predictable results of obtaining inclination/directional measurements during drilling. 2141 (III)(E).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the drilling system of claim 8.
In light of the above modification, Brown further discloses wherein the inclination sensor is configured to determine:
values of a first angle between the lateral wellbore formed by the milling assembly from the window in the casing positioned in the vertical wellbore and the vertical wellbore; and
values of a second angle between the lateral wellbore formed by the milling assembly from the window in the casing positioned in the vertical wellbore and the vertical wellbore (The sensor 188 may comprise an accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth)to determine the angle of lateral borehole 50 relative to the main wellbore 10 during its formation to ensure 50 is being formed at a desired inclination angle. As such, there will be multiple values for each angle (i.e. a first and a second angle) to ensure that 50 is on the correct path; pp[0127]).
Regarding claim 14, in light of the above modifications, Bailey further teaches wherein the plurality of mills comprise a first mill (42) positioned at a distal end of the tabular mandrel (42 is at a distal end of 41; Fig. 5) and a second mill (44) positioned uphole of the first mill (42), and the inclination sensor is mounted in or to the tubular mandrel between the first and second mills (The inclination sensor 188 of Brown will be mounted to the tubular mandrel 41 between the first and second mills of Bailey).
Regarding claim 15, Bailey teaches a drilling method, comprising:
running a downhole tool (Fig. 5 illustrates a downhole tool) into a vertical (the cased borehole 9; Figs. 8, 9) wellbore formed from a terranean surface (not shown but implicit) to one or more subterranean formations (Fig. 5 illustrates a subterranean formation through which the wellbore 9 is formed), the downhole tool comprising a milling assembly (three-in-one sidetrack mill 40; Fig. 5) that comprises:
a tubular mandrel (41; Fig 5);
a first mill (42) coupled to the tubular mandrel at a downhole end of the tubular mandrel (42 is at a downhole end of 41; Fig. 5);
a second mill (44; Fig. 5) coupled to the tubular mandrel (41) uphole of the first mill (42); and
forming a window (20) in a casing (8) of the vertical wellbore (9) with the first and second mills (44, 44; Figs. 5-9, Col. 6 lines 37-41);
urging the milling assembly (41) through the window (20; Figs. 8, 9) in the casing (8) of the vertical wellbore with a whipstock (16) positioned in the vertical wellbore (9);
milling at least a portion of a lateral wellbore (28; Fig. 9) with the first (42) and second mills (44) from the window (20) formed in the casing (8).
a drilling assembly that is directed through the lateral wellbore (A subsequent sidetracking drilling operation would, for example, utilize a conventional three cone rock bit that is directed through the finished window 20 into the sidetracked borehole 28; Fig.8, 9, Col. 5 lines 12-16).
Bailey is silent regarding an inclination sensor mounted in or to a portion of the tubular mandrel separate from and between the first mill and the second mill; during the milling, determining an angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore with the inclination sensor; activating a memory mode of the inclination sensor at the terranean surface; during formation of the window and during the milling determining a plurality of values of an angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore with the inclination sensor; storing the determined values of the angle in at least one memory module communicably coupled to the inclination sensor; subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface, accessing the stored determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module; and based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, making a decision to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore.
an inclination sensor (the sensor 188 is able to measure at least one parameter of the rathole 50. The parameter that is measured may relate to the trajectory of the rathole 50, and may include inclination and/or azimuth" pp[0121]. Fig.8, 13) provided in the milling assembly (pp[0133], Fig. 8); during the milling, determining an angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore with the inclination sensor (The present invention enables the trajectory of a rathole to be measured during its formation. The sensor 188 may measure both angular tilt (and so inclination of the rathole 50), as well as azimuth. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10; pp[0024],[0127]);
activating a memory mode of the inclination sensor at the terranean surface (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface; pp[0130]);
during formation of the window and during the milling (The present invention enables the trajectory of a rathole to be measured during its formation. The rathole will typically be of a smaller diameter than the wellbore, particularly where the wellbore has been lined with wellbore-lining tubing, such being necessary in order to allow passage of the mill which forms the window and the rathole; pp[0024],[0027]) determining a plurality of values of an angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore with the inclination sensor (the sensor 188 is of a type which is suitable for providing trajectory data relating to the rathole 50. This enables verification that the rathole 50 has extended at a desired inclination angle relative to the main wellbore 10. Furthermore, the “values” of the angle comprises measurements from accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth); pp[0127]);
storing the determined values of the angle in at least one memory module communicably coupled to the inclination sensor (The processor 202 is powered by the battery 198, and stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]);
subsequent to running the milling assembly out of the vertical wellbore to the terranean surface, accessing the stored determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module (data measured by the sensor 188 may be recovered at surface and verification is performed to confirm that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory; pp[0130]); and based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module, making a decision to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore or to run a drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore (following verification that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory, i.e. the desired inclination angle, suitable milling/drilling equipment would then be deployed into the well to complete the deviation procedure; pp[0124], [0130]).
Therefore, 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 drilling method of Bailey such that it included the measurement assembly comprising the sensor and memory module of Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to verify whether the lateral wellbore has extended at the desired inclination angle relative to the vertical wellbore and determine the next suitable equipment to be deployed in the wellbore (pp[0127], [0130]).
The combination of Bailey and Brown is silent regarding the inclination sensor mounted in or to a portion of the tubular mandrel separate from and between the first mill and the second mill.
Brown does disclose that although the inclination sensor and communication is provided in the mill of the milling assembly, the inclination sensor and the communication device may be provided in other parts or components of the milling assembly (pp[0133], Fig. 8). However, Brown does not specify where the inclination sensor may be provided in the other parts or components of the milling assembly which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Madhavan, drawn to a wellbore drilling system, discloses a directional measurement sensor (20; pp[0036]) that is mounted in or a portion of the tubular mandrel (the drill string as shown; Fig. 2) separate from and between the first mill (16) and the second mill (a bladed stabilizer 26; Fig. 2, pp[0032]).
Therefore, 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 location of the inclination sensor of the combination of Bailey and Brown such that it is disposed between the first mill and the second mill, as taught by Madhavan, as it would have been obvious to try this configuration for the inclination sensor, choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions of the inclination sensor being disposed in the drill bit or above the drill bit such that it’s between the drill bit (first mill) and the second mill, which would yield the same predictable results of obtaining inclination/directional measurements during drilling. 2141 (III)(E).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the drilling method of claim 15.
Brown further discloses wherein determining the values of angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore with the inclination sensor comprises:
determining values of a first angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore; and determining values of a second angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore (The sensor 188 may comprise an accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth)to determine the angle of lateral borehole 50 relative to the main wellbore 10 during its formation to ensure 50 is being formed at a desired inclination angle. As such, there will be multiple values for each angle (i.e. a first and a second angle) to ensure that 50 is on the correct path; pp[0127]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the drilling method of claim 15,
Brown further discloses wherein determining the values of the angle between the lateral wellbore and the vertical wellbore with the inclination sensor comprises determining the values of angle with at least one accelerometer (the sensor 188 may comprise an accelerometer (used for measuring inclination angle of lateral borehole 50 relative to the main wellbore 10; pp[0127]).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the drilling method of claim 20.
Brown further discloses comprising:
based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module satisfying a threshold, making the decision to run the drilling assembly into the vertical wellbore; and based on the accessed determined values of the angle from the at least one memory module not satisfying the threshold, making the decision to run the milling assembly back into the vertical wellbore (following verification that the rathole 50 has followed the correct trajectory, i.e. the desired inclination angle, suitable milling/drilling equipment would then be deployed into the well to complete the deviation procedure; pp[0124], [0130])).
Regarding claim 22, Bailey further discloses wherein the milling assembly comprises
a third mill (46; Fig. 5) coupled to the tubular mandrel (41) uphole of the second mill (44), and the method comprises:
forming the window (20; Figs. 5-8) in the casing (8) of the vertical wellbore (9) with the first (42), second (44), and third mills (46; Col. 6 lines 37-41); and
milling at least the portion of the lateral wellbore (28) with the first (42), second (44), and third (46) mills from the window (20) formed in the casing (8;Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Patent No. 5657820) in view of BROWN-KERR (U.S. Publication No. 20210372219) (Hereinafter Brown), Madhavan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20080159077) and in further view of Smith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210270125).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 17, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the downhole tool of claim 1, drilling system of claim 8 and drilling method of claim 15.
The combination is silent regarding wherein the inclination sensor is mounted/installed within a pocket formed in a wall of the tubular mandrel.
Smith, drawn to a sensor module to make measurements in a wellbore, discloses that the sensor module (215) is mounted/installed within a pocket (pocket 225 that is covered by clamp a clamp 210; Fig. 2A, B, pp[0015],[0016])) formed in the wall of the tubular mandrel (180; Fig 1).
Therefore, 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 downhole tool of the combination such that the inclination sensor is arranged on the downhole tool in the manner taught by Smith as this will secure the inclination sensor to the tubular mandrel (pp[0015]).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the combination of Bailey, Brown, Madhavan and Smith teaches the downhole tool of claim 2 and drilling system of claim 9.
Smith further discloses comprising a cover plate (clamp 210; Fig. 2A) coupled to the tubular mandrel over the pocket to enclose the inclination sensor (clamp 210 includes an external surface 280 and an arcuate interior portion 265 shaped to partially extend around or encase the sensor module 215; pp[0022]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the combination of Bailey, Brown, Madhavan and Smith teaches the downhole tool of claim 3 and drilling system of claim 10.
Smith further teaches comprising one or more fasteners (295; Figs. 2A, 2C) configured to couple at least one of the inclination sensor or the cover plate (210; Fig. 2C, pp[0022]) to the tubular mandrel (180; Fig. 2A).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Patent No. 5657820) in view of BROWN-KERR (U.S. Publication No. 20210372219) (Hereinafter Brown), Madhavan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20080159077) and in further view of Dunbar (U.S. Publication No. 20210131263).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the combination of Bailey, Brown and Madhavan teaches the downhole tool of claim 1 and drilling system of claim 8.
Brown further discloses at least one accelerometer (188) and the at least one memory module (The processor 202 is powered by the battery 198, and stores data relating to parameters measured by the sensor 188; pp[0124]) communicably coupled to the at least one accelerometer (the sensor 188 may comprises both an accelerometer (used for measuring inclination) and a gyroscopic sensor (for measuring azimuth),; pp[0045], [0046]).
The combination is silent regarding the inclination sensor comprises a printed circuit board that comprising the at least one accelerometer.
Dunbar, drawn to a downhole drilling tool comprising monitoring system, discloses a printed circuit board that comprising the at least one accelerometer (The PCB 102 may be an electronic package comprising one or more motion related measurement sensors such as a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and/or an accelerometer; pp[0015]).
Therefore, 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 drilling system of the combination such that it includes a printed circuit board, as taught by Dunbar, in order to process the measurement data downhole (pp[0019]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Patent No. 5657820) in view of BROWN-KERR (U.S. Publication No. 20210372219) (Hereinafter Brown), Madhavan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20080159077), Smith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210270125) and in further view of Nicholson (U.S. Publication No. 20180038169).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bailey, Brown, Madhavan and Smith teaches the drilling method of claim 17.
Smith further discloses comprising securing a cover (210) on or to the tubular mandrel (180) with one or more bolts (295) to enclose the inclination sensor (clamp 210 includes an external surface 280 and an arcuate interior portion 265 shaped to partially extend around or encase the sensor module 215; pp[0022]) in the pocket (225).
The combination fails to teach that the bolts are one or more tension bolts.
Nicholson, drawn to a downhole tool for use in wellbore, discloses that the downhole tool comprises a set of tension bolts (pp[0022]).
Therefore, 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 bolts of the combination such that they are replaced with the tension bolts of Nicholson because tension bolts are known to evenly distributes the tensile load over multiple tension bolts along the periphery of the end cap of the bolts (pp[0022]).
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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights