DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The claims filed on December 1, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Claims 11-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-20, drawn to a system and apparatus including a diverter assembly, in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
This application claims benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63/656,000 filed on June 4, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 24, 2024 and March 24, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
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 the recitation of “Some implementations” is considered an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curington et al., US 5,353,876 (hereinafter Curington).
Claim 11: Curington discloses a system comprising:
a fracture string including one or more pipes (conventional liner or slotted liner 88) to be lowered from a surface into a multibore well (lower bore 68, upper bore 70) formed in one or more subsurface formations (see Fig 4A-4D, col 9, ln 8-14, col 10, ln 42-46); and
a diverter assembly (whipstock assembly 72) to be run into the multibore well with the fracture string and configured for placement within a primary bore (vertical wellbore 66) of the multibore well (Fig 4A-D, col 9, ln 1-42), the diverter assembly (72) comprising, an external diverter (whipstock 74) positioned within the primary bore (66) of the multibore well (Fig 4A-4D) , and
an internal diverter (sealing plug 80) positioned within an opening of the external diverter (bore of whipstock 74), wherein the external diverter (74) and internal diverter (80) are configured to divert one or more downhole tools (head 100) into a lateral bore (68, 70) of the multibore well (Fig 4A-4D, col 9, ln 1-42, col 10, ln 3-23).
Claim 12: Curington discloses wherein the internal diverter (sealing plug 80) is comprised of at least one of a drillable material and a mill-able material (plug 80 is capable of being drilled or jetted out and formed of a suitable drillable material, col 9, ln 21-23).
Claim 14: Curington discloses comprising:
an anchoring, orienting, and sealing device (retrievable ported anchor whipstock assembly 72) to be positioned within at least the primary bore (66) of the multibore well (a drillpipe 74 for lowering the whipstock packer assembly 72 into a selected position in the vertical wellbore and a packer 78 for supporting ported whipstock 74 in position, col 9, ln 13-20), wherein the anchoring, orienting, and sealing device (72) is configured to secure the external diverter (74) within the primary bore of the multibore well (see Fig 4A, col 9, ln 30-42).
Claim 17: Curington discloses an apparatus (see Fig 4A-4D) comprising:
a diverter assembly (whipstock assembly 72) to be run into the multibore well with the fracture string and configured for placement within a primary bore (vertical wellbore 66) of the multibore well (Fig 4A-D, col 9, ln 1-42), the diverter assembly (72) comprising,
an external diverter (whipstock 74) positioned within the primary bore (66) of the multibore well (Fig 4A-4D) , and
an internal diverter (sealing plug 80) positioned within an opening of the external diverter (bore of whipstock 74), wherein the external diverter (74) and internal diverter (80) are configured to divert one or more downhole tools (head 100) into a lateral bore (68, 70) of the multibore well (Fig 4A-4D, col 9, ln 1-42, col 10, ln 3-23).
Claim 18: Curington discloses wherein the internal diverter (sealing plug 80) is comprised of at least one of a drillable material and a mill-able material (plug 80 is capable of being drilled or jetted out and formed of a suitable drillable material, col 9, ln 21-23).
Claim 20: Curington discloses comprising:
an anchoring, orienting, and sealing device (retrievable ported anchor whipstock assembly 72) to be positioned within at least the primary bore (66) of the multibore well (drillpipe 74 for lowering the whipstock packer assembly 72 into a selected position in the vertical wellbore and a packer 78 for supporting ported whipstock 74 in position, col 9, ln 13-20), wherein the anchoring, orienting, and sealing device (72) is configured to secure the external diverter (74) within the primary bore of the multibore well (see Fig 4A, col 9, ln 30-42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curington in view of Jordan et al., US 2008/0105438 (hereinafter Jordan).
Claims 13 and 19: Curington is silent as to the internal diverter is comprised of a dissolvable material.
Jordan discloses whipstocks and deflectors comprised of a dissolvable material (degradable deflectors and whipstocks 8 that are reactive and/or dissolvable using degradable compositions, par [0012], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the internal diverter of Curington with a dissolvable material as disclosed by Jordan, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of a dissolvable material would have achieved the same goal removing the internal diverter from the external diverter.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curington in view of Cho et al., US 2020/0256128 (hereinafter Cho).
Claim 15: Curington fails to disclose a first isolation barrier positioned within the primary bore of the multibore well; and at least a second isolation barrier positioned within at least the lateral bore of the multibore well, wherein the first isolation barrier and at least the second isolation barrier are removable from the multibore well in a single trip of a removal tool without removing the removal tool from the multibore well to the surface.
Cho discloses a deflector assembly comprising comprising: a first isolation barrier (main wellbore barrier plug 1710) positioned within the primary bore (main wellbore section 1410) of the multibore well (multilateral well 1400); and
at least a second isolation barrier (lower lateral wellbore barrier plug 2110) positioned within at least the lateral bore (lower lateral wellbore section 1430) of the multibore well (see Fig 23);
wherein the first isolation barrier (1710) and at least the second isolation barrier (2110) are removable from the multibore well in a single trip of a removal tool without removing the removal tool from the multibore well to the surface (main wellbore barrier plug 1710 and lower lateral wellbore barrier plug 2110 are removed by milling string, repositioning the frac tip to another lateral is performed seamlessly using the deflector assemblies 1510, 1550 without any change at the surface, par [0060]-[0061])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Curington to further include the first and second isolation barrier as disclosed by Cho as applying the known technique of isolation barriers in the each wellbore section would have yielded the predictable results of fracture in one continuous sequence which would enable a more efficient fracturing operation (Cho, par [0061]).
Claim 16: Curington, as modified by Cho, wherein the first isolation barrier (Cho, 1710) and the second isolation barrier (Cho, 2110) are removable by means of at least one of drilling, milling, and retrieval (Cho, removing via milling string, the main wellbore barrier plug 1710 and the lower lateral wellbore barrier plug 2110, Fig 27-28, and 30-31).
Conclusion
Claims 11-20 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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 E 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676