DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is one run-on sentence. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Due to the restriction requirement in older applications related to this one, the title of the invention is no longer descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0022] should be amended to recite --to the well surface [[104]]102--. Paragraph [00111] should be amended to recite --body 304 to the coring tool 310[[300]].--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie et al. (US 7,066,284 B2) (“Wylie”), alone.
Referring to claim 12: Wylie teaches a method for overbalanced drilling (column 13, lines 16-30), comprising:
casing a well extending to a boundary of a target formation zone (column 6, lines 33-48), the casing comprising a casing shoe separating the well from the target formation zone (column 27, lines 25-36);
drilling through the casing shoe to drill a wellbore through the target formation zone (column 27, lines 25-36);
pumping an agent into the wellbore (column 34, lines 54-66; column 61, line 62 - column 62, line 6) at a pressure greater than the formation fluid pressure to inject the agent a radial distance into the target formation zone from the wellbore (column 57, lines 50-67; column 66, lines 49-61); and
allowing the agent to cure within the target formation zone (column 34, lines 54-66; column 57, lines 50-67; column 66, lines 49-61).
Wylie teaches during drilling, drilling fluid is pumped through the wellbore to provide a wellbore pressure that is monitored in relation to a formation fluid pressure within the target formation zone (column 31, lines 4-11; column 80, lines 15-31). Wylie does not specifically teach drilling fluid is pumped through the wellbore to provide a wellbore pressure that is no greater than 200 psi over a formation fluid pressure within the target formation zone. 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 method taught by Wylie to include providing a wellbore pressure that is no greater than 200 psi over a formation fluid pressure with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Referring to claim 13: Wylie teaches the drilling fluid is an oil based mud free of a water phase (column 26, lines 21-34) comprising non-native weighting agents (column 36, lines 43-46), and added surfactants (column 44, lines 41-64). Wylie does not specifically teach the drilling fluid comprising added surfactants and non-native bridging particles. 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 oil based mud taught by Wylie to include added surfactants and non-native bridging particles with a reasonable expectation of success since it is very well known in the art to add various additional agents and materials based on the downhole environment.
Referring to claim 17: Wylie inherently teaches the drilling fluid is pumped at a rate. Wylie also teaches the criticality of pump rates (column 41, lines 46-58). However, Wylie does not specifically teach the drilling fluid is pumped at a rate less than 100 gpm. 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 drilling fluid pump rate taught by Wylie to be less than 100 gpm with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wood teaches a method comprising drilling a wellbore, drilling out a shoe (column 3, lines 34-40; column 3, line 67 - column 4, line 2), injecting an agent into the wellbore and letting it cure (column 5, lines 8-16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
17 October 2025