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 04/30/26.
Claims 1-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been received and
considered. However, the IDS(s) reference a U. S. patent application that appears 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).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-27 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s argument and amendment to claims 1-24 has been considered and found not persuasive. The prior art rejections made in Non-Final Office Action dated 01/07/2026 remain and are repeated below with the amended language. Although the amended claims have been further limited, the amended claims still read on the prior art of record, as each newly added limitation is taught by the applied references as explained in the updated claim rejections below. In regards to the new claims, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Cho in view of Coffin or Dahl in view of Coffin does not teach a physical obstruction in the passageway, degradable material, and substitution rational is incorrect has been has been considered and found not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interoperation, Cho or Dahl in view of Coffin teaches a degradable restraint (Coffin: 610 degradable material that physically restrains the movement of the flapper within the passageway until degradation occurs) located in the bore between opposing walls (Coffin: fluid passageway of 228 jumper tube i.e. passageway) as shown in Coffin Fig. 6C. Applicant’s argument that the degradable material is a “in-passageway physical obstruction” is further limiting than the claim language. The claim limitation requires the degradable material to be within the fluid passageway and physically obstruct the movement (Coffin: 610 physically obstructs the movement) but does not require the degradable material to be an “in-passageway obstruction.” Applicant’s argument that the substitution of Coffin’s degradable material actuated flapper for Cho or Dahls flapper valve fails to address the structural requirements has been considered and found not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination of Cho or Dahl in view of Coffin would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Both references are directed to flapper valves. Modifying Cho’s or Dahl’s flapper valve to include the degradable actuation flapper valve of Coffin would have represented a predictable use of known elements according to their known functions. As recognized in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), it is proper to combine known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, even if the references do not expressly teach the combination. The result of combining these known elements would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill because each component performs its well-understood function. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections maintained.
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 fully 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 fully 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. Specifically, the claim does not define the point at which hydrolysis is considered “complete.” Further, the claim does not define the degree of degradation required by the term “fully degrade.” It is unclear whether “fully degrade” requires complete physical disappearance of the expanded metal, complete loss of structural integrity, complete loss of mechanical support or some other condition as in either recitation, the degradation of the of expandable material allows the plug to move from a first to second position. 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, 22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US11,448,051) in view of Coffin et al. (US10,851,623).
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material.
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.
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), wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body (610 is disposed in the fluid passageway of 228 and between opposing wall surfaces of the passageway, Fig. 6C) and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (610 physically restrains the movement of the flapper within the passageway until degradation occurs, Fig. 6C) .
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 with a reasonable expectation of success 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 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material.
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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 with a reasonable expectation of success 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 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 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Cho in view of Coffin).
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 with a reasonable expectation of success 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 25. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material occupies at least a portion of a cross-sectional area of the fluid passageway (Coffin: 610 occupies a portion of the cross sectional of the fluid passageway, Fig. 6C).
Claim 26. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material extends laterally between the opposing wall surfaces of the fluid passageway (610 extends laterally from one wall toward the opposing wall, Fig. 6C).
Claim 27. Cho in view of Coffin teaches: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material volumetrically blocks movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway prior to degradation (610 has volume, blocks the movement of the flapper, and is within the fluid passageway (i.e. within the bore); Fig. 6C).
Claims 5, 7-8, 17-18, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US11,448,051) in view of Coffin et al. (US10,851,623) and further in view of Fripp (US 11,359,448).
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.
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.
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 with a reasonable expectation of success 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 of Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp).
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 Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp).
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 Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp).
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 Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of Fripp).
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. (US11,448,051) in view of Coffin et al. (US10,851,623) and further in view of McKitrick (2016/0341002).
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.
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 of Cho in view of Coffin and further in view of McKitrick).
Claims 1, 11, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US9,951,573) in view of Coffin et al. (US10,851,623).
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 308 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 308 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 flapper or ball valve, 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 wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material.
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.
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) wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body (610 is disposed in the fluid passageway of 228 and between opposing wall surfaces of the passageway, Fig. 6C) and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (610 physically restrains the movement of the flapper within the passageway until degradation occurs, Fig. 6C).
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 with a reasonable expectation of success for 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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Dhal in view of Coffin).
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 with a reasonable expectation of success for 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 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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (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 wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Dhal in view of Coffin).
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 with a reasonable expectation of success for 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).
Claims 3-4, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (US9,951,573) in view of Coffin et al. (US10,851,623) and further in view of Nish et al. (US8,127,856).
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.
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 with a reasonable expectation of success 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. (US9,951,573), in view of Coffin et al. (US10,851,623) and further in view of Fripp (US 11,359,448).
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.
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 with a reasonable expectation of success for 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).
Claims 1, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US11,448,051) in view of Nish et al. (US8,127,856).
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material.
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.
Nish teaches: degradable material located within the fluid passageway (degradable retainer or 82 time-dissolvable biodegradable balls, Fig. 9-10 in 20 flowbore, Fig. 9-10) and engaged with the plug member (74 frac ball, Fig. 9-10), the degradable material preventing the plug member from moving to the second position (82 prevents 74 from reaching 22 tapered surface, Fig. 9-10; closed position; Col. 10, lines 33-61; Fig. 10), the degradable material configured to degrade over 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 time (82 time-dissolvable biodegradable balls, Fig. 9-10; dissolvable within a predetermined passage of time to release the flow restrictor to move between the first position and a second position within the plug body; Col. 3, lines 35-37), wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (82 is disposed between opposing wall surfaces of 20 flowbore and obstructs the movement of the ball until degradation occurs, Fig. 9-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substituted the flapper valve of Coffin with the ball valve of Nish with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the flow of fluid through the valve as taught by Nish (Fig. 9-10) 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. 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 of Cho in view of Nish).
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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material.
Nish 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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Cho in view of Nish).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substituted the flapper valve of Coffin with the ball valve of Nish with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the flow of fluid through the valve as taught by Nish (Fig. 9-10) 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 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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Cho in view of Nish).
Nish 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, wherein the degradable material is disposed in the fluid passageway between opposing wall surfaces of the fluid loss device body and physically obstructs movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway until degradation of the degradable material (see previously rejected claim 1 of Cho in view of Nish).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substituted the flapper valve of Coffin with the ball valve of Nish with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the flow of fluid through the valve as taught by Nish (Fig. 9-10) 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 25. Cho in view of Nish teach: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material occupies at least a portion of a cross-sectional area of the fluid passageway (Nish: 82 occupies a portion of the cross sectional area of 20, Fig. 9).
Claim 26. Cho in view of Nish teach: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material extends laterally between the opposing wall surfaces of the fluid passageway (Nish: 82 extends laterally between opposing wall surfaces, Fig. 9).
Claim 27. Cho in view of Nish teach: The multilateral fluid loss device as recited in Claim 1, wherein the degradable material volumetrically blocks movement of the plug member within the fluid passageway prior to degradation (Nish: 82 volumetrically blocks 72, Fig. 9).
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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights