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 on 09/26/2025.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The multiple information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted have been received and
considered. However, the IDS(s) include a number of U.S. patents, U. S. patent application, and foreign
patent document references that appear to have no relevancy to the claimed invention and has not
been considered. These inclusions have not been considered as shown on the struck through IDS(s).
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.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 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.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the limitation “the metal based degradable material is an expandable metal configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and then degrade” and claims 8 and 18 recite the limitation “the expandable metal is configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and after the hydrolysis has completed then degrade.” It is unclear of how a “expandable metal configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and then degrade” is different from “expandable metal is configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and after the hydrolysis has completed then degrade” in order to meet the claim invention. Hydrolysis is a continuous process that does not have clear, objectively determinable point of “completion,” and the specification does not provide criteria for determining when hydrolysis is complete. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would be not reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US11448051) in view of Coffin et al. (US10851623).
Claim 1. Cho discloses: A multilateral fluid loss device (402 fluid loss device or flapper valve, Fig. 4), comprising:
a fluid loss device body (body is inherent to a flapper valve, Fig. 4), the fluid loss device body having a first end and a second end coupled together by a fluid passageway (proximal and distal end of flapper valve with main bore fluid passageway controlled by the flapper is the inherent structure of a flapper valve, Fig. 4);
a plug member located in the fluid passageway (inherent flapper of the flapper valve, Fig. 4; flapper can be actuated to open or close the main bore passageway; Col. 2, lines 38-46), the plug member configured to move between a first position allowing fluid to traverse the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end and a second position preventing the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (flapper can be actuated to open or close the main bore passageway; Col. 2, lines 38-46). Cho does not disclose:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end.
Coffin discloses a completion system comprising of a flapper valve with a degradable or dissolvable material that holds the flapper in an open position and once dissolved, the material allows the flapper to detach from the wall and close. Therefore, Coffin teaches:
degradable material (610 degradable material, Fig. 6C) located within the fluid passageway (fluid passageway of 228 jumper tube, Fig. 6C) and engaged with the plug member (610 is coupled to 608 close feature i.e. flapper, Fig. 6C), the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position (610 holds the flapper open and prevents it from closing position, Fig. 6C), the degradable material configured to degrade over time (inherent to a dissolvable or degradable material; Col. 15, lines 43-54) and allow the plug member to move from the first position (open position, Fig. 6C) to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (Col. 15, lines 27-42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the flapper valve of Cho with the flapper valve of Coffin to yield the predictable result of controlling flapper positioning to then control fluid flow as suggested by both Cho and Coffin because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 2. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the plug member is a flapper valve, the flapper valve configured to move to the second position and engage with a flapper valve seat after the degradable material had degraded to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 6. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material is a metal based degradable material (Coffin: degradable material is a dissolvable metal; Col. 15, lines 43-54).
Claim 9. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material is a polymer based degradable material (Coffin: degradable rubber; Col. 15, lines 43-54).
Claim 11. Cho discloses: A well system (Fig. 1-15), comprising:
a wellbore (102 main bore, Fig. 1) located within a subterranean formation; and
a multilateral fluid loss device located in the wellbore, the multilateral fluid loss device including:
a fluid loss device body, the fluid loss device body having a first end and a second end coupled together by a fluid passageway;
a plug member located in the fluid passageway, the plug member configured to move between a first position allowing fluid to traverse the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end and a second position preventing the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1). Cho does not disclose:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end.
Coffin further teaches:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 12. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The well system as recited in Claim 11, wherein the plug member is a flapper valve, the flapper valve configured to move to the second position and engage with a flapper valve seat after the degradable material had degraded to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 16. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The well system as recited in Claim 11, wherein the degradable material is a metal based degradable material (see previously rejected claim 6).
Claim 19. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The well system as recited in Claim 11, wherein the degradable material is a polymer based degradable material (see previously rejected claim 9).
Claim 22. Cho discloses: A method for forming a well system, comprising:
forming a wellbore within a subterranean formation; and
positioning a multilateral fluid loss device in the wellbore, the multilateral fluid loss device including:
a fluid loss device body, the fluid loss device body having a first end and a second end coupled together by a fluid passageway;
a plug member located in the fluid passageway, the plug member configured to move between a first position allowing fluid to traverse the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end and a second position preventing the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1). Choe does not disclose:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1).
Coffing further teaches:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claims 5, 7-8, 17-18, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US11448051) in view of Coffin et al. (US10851623) and further in view of Fripp (US 11359448).
Claim 5. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1. Cho in view of Coffin does not teach: further including a delay coating surrounding the degradable material, the delay coating configured to increase a time needed for the degradable material to degrade.
Fripp discloses a barrier coating layer of an expandable metal wellbore tool for use in a wellbore. The barrier coating layer covers a portion of the outer surface of the expandable member and has a composition formulated to react with a wellbore fluid and erode within a predetermined amount of time to allow a wellbore fluid to contact and hydrolyze the expandable member. Therefore, Fripp teaches:
a delay coating (410 barrier coating, Fig. 4) surrounding the degradable material (410 covers all the outer surface of 220 expandable member; Col. 6, lines 19-22), the delay coating configured to increase a time needed for the degradable material to degrade (Col 2, lines 29-42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the degradable material of Cho in view of Coffing with the barrier coating of Fripp with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Fripp to act as a delay timer that postpones the reaction of the degradable material until a predetermined amount of time has lapsed (Col. 2, lines 29-42).
Claim 7. Cho in view of Coffin teach: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 6, wherein the metal based degradable material is an expandable metal configured to expand then degrade to allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position (Cho: dissolvable or degradable material can be metal and swell, dissolve or degrade or any combination of the foregoing; Col. 15, lines 43-54). Cho in view of Coffin does not teach: in response to hydrolysis.
Fripp discloses an expandable metal downhole tool that reacts in response to hydrolysis. Therefore, Fripp teaches: in response to hydrolysis (Col. 3, lines 22-25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the degradable material of Cho in view of Coffin to yield the predictable result of controlling the reaction of degradable material by hydrolysis as suggested by Cho and Fripp because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 8. Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp teach: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 7, wherein the expandable metal is configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and after the hydrolysis has completed then degrade to allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position (see previously rejected claim 7).
Claim 15. Cho in view of Coffin and Fripp teaches: The well system as recited in Claim 11, further including a delay coating surrounding the degradable material, the delay coating configured to increase a time needed for the degradable material to degrade (see previously rejected claim 5).
Claim 17. Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp teach: The well system as recited in Claim 16, wherein the metal based degradable material is an expandable metal configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and then degrade to allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position (see previously rejected claim 7).
Claim 18. Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp teach: The well system as recited in Claim 17, wherein the expandable metal is configured to expand in response to hydrolysis and after the hydrolysis has completed then degrade to allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position (see previously rejected claim 7).
Claim 23. Cho in view of Coffin teach: The method as recited in Claim 22. Cho in view of Coffin does not explicitly teach: further including circulating reactive fluid about the degradable material to allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end. Cho in view of Coffin does teach a dissolvable or degradable material that is configured to degrade by any mechanisms (Cho: Col. 15, lines 43-54) but is silent on a reactive fluid.
Fripp further teaches: reactive fluid (Col. 3, lines 22-25; water is the reactive fluid).
Claims 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US11448051) in view of Coffin et al. (US10851623) and further in view of McKitrick (20160341002).
Claim 10. Cho in view of Coffin teach: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1. Cho in view of Coffin does not teach: wherein the fluid passageway has uphole and downhole diameter portions separated by a larger middle diameter portion, and further wherein the plug member is located in the larger middle diameter portion.
McKitrick discloses a plug-actuated sub can include a housing disposed in the wellbore tubular and a plug seat located inside the housing. The plug-actuated sub also has a flapper and a flapper seat located inside the housing. Therefore, McKitrick teaches:
the fluid passageway (bore of 40 plug seat, Fig. 1) has uphole (bore of 22 additional member, Fig. 1) and downhole diameter (bore of 20 housing at distal end, Fig. 1) portions separated by a larger middle diameter portion (bore where 32 flapper is in open position, Fig. 1-2), and further wherein the plug member is located in the larger middle diameter portion (Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the flapper valve geometry of Cho in view of Coffin with the plug operated sub of McKitrick with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by McKitrick because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 20. Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of McKitrick teach: The well system as recited in Claim 11, wherein the fluid passageway has uphole and downhole diameter portions separated by a larger middle diameter portion, and further wherein the plug member is located in the larger middle diameter portion (see previously rejected claim 10).
Claims 1, 11, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US9951573) in view of Coffin et al. (US10851623).
Claim 1. Dahl discloses: A multilateral fluid loss device (308 fluid loss device, Fig. 3), comprising:
a fluid loss device body (body is inherent to a fluid loss device, Fig. 3), the fluid loss device body having a first end and a second end coupled together by a fluid passageway (proximal and distal end of fluid loss device with 306 whipstock bore controlled by the fluid loss device is the inherent structure of a flapper or ball valve, Fig. 3);
a plug member located in the fluid passageway (308, Fig. 3), the plug member configured to move between a first position allowing fluid to traverse the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end and a second position preventing the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5, line 12). Dahl does not disclose:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end.
Coffin discloses a completion system comprising of a flapper valve with a degradable or dissolvable material that holds the flapper in an open position and once dissolved, the material allows the flapper to detach from the wall and close. Therefore, Coffin teaches:
degradable material (610 degradable material, Fig. 6C) located within the fluid passageway (fluid passageway of 228 jumper tube, Fig. 6C) and engaged with the plug member (610 is coupled to 608 close feature i.e. flapper, Fig. 6C), the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position (610 holds the flapper open and prevents it from closing position, Fig. 6C), the degradable material configured to degrade over time (inherent to a dissolvable or degradable material; Col. 15, lines 43-54) and allow the plug member to move from the first position (open position, Fig. 6C) to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (Col. 15, lines 27-42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the flapper valve of Dhal with the flapper valve of Coffin to yield the predictable result of controlling flapper positioning to then control fluid flow as suggested by both Dhal and Coffin because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 11. Dahl discloses: A well system, comprising:
a wellbore (102 parent bore, Fig. 1) located within a subterranean formation; and
a multilateral fluid loss device located in the wellbore, the multilateral fluid loss device including:
a fluid loss device body, the fluid loss device body having a first end and a second end coupled together by a fluid passageway
a plug member located in the fluid passageway, the plug member configured to move between a first position allowing fluid to traverse the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end and a second position preventing the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end. Dahl does not disclose:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1 of Dhal in view of Coffin).
Coffin further teaches:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1 of Dhal).
Claim 21. Dahl in view of Coffin teaches: The well system as recite in Claim 11, wherein the wellbore is a main wellbore, and further including a multilateral whipstock assembly (Dahl: 204 whipstock, Fig. 2) located in the main wellbore proximate a junction between the main wellbore and where a lateral wellbore is to be formed (Dahl; Fig. 2-4), wherein the multilateral fluid loss device is located within the multilateral whipstock assembly (Dhal: 308 is within 204, Fig.3).
Claim 22. Dahl discloses: A method for forming a well system, comprising:
forming a wellbore within a subterranean formation; and
positioning a multilateral fluid loss device in the wellbore, the multilateral fluid loss device including:
a fluid loss device body, the fluid loss device body having a first end and a second end coupled together by a fluid passageway
a plug member located in the fluid passageway, the plug member configured to move between a first position allowing fluid to traverse the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end and a second position preventing the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end. Dahl does not disclose:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1 of Dhal in view of Coffin).
Coffin further teaches:
degradable material located within the fluid passageway and engaged with the plug member, the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position, the degradable material configured to degrade over time and allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 1 of Dhal in view of Coffin).
Claims 3-4, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US9951573), in view of Coffin et al. (US10851623) and further in view Nish et al. (US8127856).
Claim 3. Dahl in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the plug member is a ball, the ball configured to move to the second position and engage with a ball seat (Dahl: 308 fluid loss control device can be a ball valve, Col. 5, lines 5-8; ball and ball seat is inherent to a ball valve with similar function as flapper valve). Dahl in view of Coffin does not teach: after the degradable material had degraded to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end.
Nish discloses a down hole flow control tool for use in a well bore comprising of a non-dissolvable flow restrictor operably disposed in the flow bore and operates to restrict fluid flow through the flow bore, and a time-dissolvable retainer or spacer operably coupled to the flow restrictor to retain the flow restrictor in a first position within the flow bore. The retainer is dissolvable within a predetermined passage of time to release the flow restrictor to move between the first position and a second position within the flow bore to control the flow of fluid through the downhole tool. Therefore, Nish teaches:
the ball (74 frac ball, Fig. 9-10) configured to move to the second position and engage with a ball seat (tapered surface, Fig. 9-10) after the degradable material (degradable retainer or 82 biodegradable balls, Fig. 9-10) had degraded to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway (20 flow bore, Fig. 9-10) as it travels from the first end to the second end (closed position; Col. 10, lines 33-61; Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the ball valve of Dahl in view of Coffin with the ball valve of Nish to yield the predictable result of controlling the ball positioning to then control fluid flow as suggested by both Dhal, Coffin and Nish because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4. Dahl in view of Coffin and Nish teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material has one or more openings located therein the one or more openings allowing fluid to pass through the degradable material (Nish: degradable retainer or 82 biodegradable balls, Fig. 9-10; do not form a seal and allows fluid to freely pass; Col. 1o, line s39-44), as the degradable material prevents the plug member from moving to the second position (Nish: Fig. 9).
Claim 13. Dahl in view of Coffin teaches: The well system as recited in Claim 11, wherein the plug member is a ball, the ball configured to move to the second position and engage with a ball seat. Dahl in view of Coffin teach does not teach:
after the degradable material had degraded to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end.
Nish further teaches: after the degradable material had degraded to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end (see previously rejected claim 3 of Dahl in view of Coffin and Nish).
Claim 14. Dahl in view of Coffin and Nish teaches: The well system as recited in Claim 11, wherein the degradable material has one or more openings located therein, the one or more openings allowing fluid to pass through the degradable material as the degradable material prevents the plug member from moving to the second position (see previously rejected claim 4 of Dahl in view of Coffin and Nish).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US9951573), in view of Coffin et al. (US10851623) and further in view of Fripp (US 11359448).
Claim 23. Dahl in view of Coffin teaches: The method as recited in Claim 22. Dahl in view of Coffin does not explicitly teach: further including circulating reactive fluid about the degradable material to allow the plug member to move from the first position to the second position to prevent the fluid from traversing the fluid passageway as it travels from the first end to the second end. Dahl in view of Coffin does teaches a dissolvable or degradable material that is configured to degrade by any mechanisms (Cho: Col. 15, lines 43-54) but is silent on a reactive fluid.
Fripp discloses an expandable metal downhole tool that reacts in response to hydrolysis. Therefore, Fripp teaches: reactive fluid (Col. 3, lines 22-25; water is the reactive fluid).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the degradable material of Dhal in view of Coffin to yield the predictable result of controlling the reaction of degradable material by hydrolysis as suggested by Dhal and Coffin because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 24. Dahl in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp teaches: The method as recites in Claim 23, wherein the wellbore is a main wellbore, and further including a multilateral whipstock assembly located in the main wellbore proximate a junction between the main wellbore and where a lateral wellbore is to be formed, wherein the multilateral fluid loss device is located within the multilateral whipstock assembly (see previously rejected claim 21 of Dahl in view of Coffin).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676