DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9, 11 & 13 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application filed on December 6, 2024 and the Response to Restriction Requirement filed June 16, 2026. Claims 10, 12 & 14-20 stand withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 16, 2026 and Figures 10, 25 & 30-32 over the telephone (see attached Interview Summary PTOL-413/413b) is acknowledged. Claims 10, 12 & 14-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on December 7, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA3222163 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites one or more phrases that can be implied. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because (1) Figures 28, 30-32 & 37 each have writing that is not legible; and (2) Figure 29 has no axes labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9 & 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 appears to recite “pre-treatment fluid” and “treatment fluid” (in parent Claim 2) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “and/or”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “or”, “a combination thereof”, or similar is recommended. Further, Claim 5 appears to recite “leg well sections” and “horizontal legs” (in parent Claim 1) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 appears to recite “leg well sections” and “horizontal legs” (in parent Claim 1) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 appears to recite “leg well sections” and “horizontal legs” (in parent Claim 1) interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity. Further, Claim 9 appears to refer back to features such as the legs and rib well sections that are previously recited in parent Claim 1. It is recommended that Claim 9 clearly refer back to the respective features with the inclusion of language such as “the” in all instances. It is also suggested that the phrase “respective” be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “prior to producing”. As parent Claim 1 previously recites a step of producing, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “prior to the producing” or similar is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6, 8 & 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the horizontal legs and the rib well sections are aligned in a same plane within the reservoir within 1 meter of each other at intersections thereof”. The distancing as claimed is unclear. Is the distancing between a single horizontal leg and a single rib well section, between one horizontal leg and a plurality of rib well sections, between one rib well section and a plurality of horizontal legs, other? Also, if intersecting, how is the distancing “within 1 meter”? Further, parent Claim 1 recites “wherein a plurality of the rib well sections intersect with a plurality of the multiple horizontal legs to form a waffle well network”, which appears to encompass embodiments with a plurality of intersections for each rib well section and for each horizontal leg. As such, it is unclear what the distancing “at intersections thereof” refers to. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 5 recites “spaced-apart intersections”. It is unclear what this limitation refers to. How is an intersection “spaced-apart”? Further, it is unclear what “the corresponding well sections” refers to. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 6 recites “…wherein at least 50% of the crossovers between rib well sections and leg well sections provide respective intersections”; which is unclear in its entirety. As such, the scope, metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Does “the crossovers” refer to “the crossover well”, the intersections, other? What does “respective intersections” refer to? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 8 recites “a substantially same length” and “generally straight”, where the terms “substantially” and “generally” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “substantially” and “generally” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “substantially” and “generally” render the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the characteristics required to be considered “substantially” same length and “generally” straight. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the rib well sections extend from one side of the spine well section such that the crossover well is a feather well” (emphasis added). A feather well typically comprises branches on both sides. As such, it is unclear how the rib well sections extend from one side to provide a feather well as instantly claimed. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder et al. (US 2014/0345861), in view of Clark et al. (US 2009/0255661).
With respect to Claim 1, Stalder discloses a method for recovering hydrocarbons from a subterranean reservoir comprising: providing multiple horizontal wells in the reservoir; providing a crossover well in the reservoir, the crossover well comprising a spine well section and rib well sections extending from the spine well section, wherein the wells form a well network; and producing hydrocarbons that flow through the well network for recovery at surface (Stalder: Sections [0003] & [0043]-[0059]); wherein one or more of the plurality of horizontal wells as disclosed are considered a crossover well as broadly claimed and described in at least [0015] of the instant specification).
Stalder further teaches wherein the method conserves resources, reduces cost, and improves production, and also teaches one or more embodiments “wherein a plurality of the rib well sections intersect with a plurality of the horizontal wells” (Stalder: Sections [0026], [0030], [0031], [0047] & [0109]-[0114]); wherein Stalder teaches the intersection of lateral/rib sections with horizontal wells. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a plurality of the rib well sections that intersect with a plurality of the horizontal wells as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to conserve resources, reduce cost, and/or improve production. Further, as Stalder teaches the intersection as instantly claimed, the intersection is considered to form a “waffle” well network through which hydrocarbons are flowed for recovery as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as taught by Stalder and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Stalder further teaches employing one or more multilateral wells and combining wells, as an alternative to conventional SAGD wells, to reduce cost (Stalder: Sections [0030] & [0040]). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose providing a “multileg” horizontal well with “the multileg horizontal well comprising a vertical well section and multiple horizontal legs extending from the vertical well section” and “the crossover well sharing at least a portion of the vertical well section of the multileg horizontal well” as instantly claimed.
Clark teaches methods of drilling multilateral wells therein, wherein multilaterals wells are drilled with multiple horizontal legs (injection and/or production legs) and with the injection and production wells comprising a shared vertical section, as an alternative to conventional SAGD wells, to reduce cost, reduce footprint and environmental impact, and improve hydrocarbon recovery (Clark: Sections [0005]-[0007], [0019], [0020], [0028] & [0033]; Figures). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Stalder with the aforementioned teachings of Clark to employ a multileg horizontal well with the multileg horizontal well comprising a vertical well section and multiple horizontal legs extending from the vertical well section and the crossover well sharing at least a portion of the vertical well section of the multileg horizontal well as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce cost, reduce footprint and environmental impact, and/or improve hydrocarbon recovery. (Clark: Sections [0005]-[0007], [0019], [0020], [0028] & [0033]; Figures).
With respect to Claim 2, the combined references of Stalder and Clark teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Stalder further discloses “…further comprising a pre-treatment stage where a treatment fluid is injected or circulated into the waffle well network prior to the step of producing” (Stalder: Sections [0055]-[0059] & [0086]).
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references of Stalder and Clark teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 2. Stalder further discloses “…wherein the pre-treatment fluid comprises steam, acid, hot water, surfactant, or a combination thereof” (Stalder: Sections [0055]-[0059] & [0086]).
With respect to Claims 4, 6, 7, 8 & 11 the combined references of Stalder and Clark teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Stalder further teaches one or more embodiments where the placement/spacing/length/intersections of the wells/laterals is dependent on geology, reservoir characteristics, rocks, the play etc., with the well placement, intersections and configuration optimized to provide efficient treatment fluid/steam communication and drainage and hydrocarbon recovery, and wherein the wells/laterals may be planar or slanted, including variations such as one-sided laterals as known in the art (Stalder: Sections [0012], [0031]-[0033], [0046]-[0054], [0063]-[0069], [0087]-[0091] & [0100]; Figure 5). With respect to Claim 11, it is also noted that “a shaft well section” and “barb well sections” are considered the spine well section and rib well sections, respectively, as described in at least [0015] of the instant specification. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the well configuration features as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize placement, features and configuration of the well(s) and respective section(s) as desired, such as respectively claimed, based on operational/reservoir conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve treatment efficiency and hydrocarbon recovery.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art improving hydrocarbon recovery , and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the optimization of well configuration and placement to improve treatment efficiency as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the combined teachings of Stalder and Clark, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued optimizing the configuration/placement of the well(s) and respective section(s) as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 5, the combined references of Stalder and Clark teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Stalder further teaches “…wherein intersections of the rib well sections and the leg well sections include partial intersections, full intersections, and/or spaced-apart intersections with fluid communication between the corresponding well sections” (Stalder: Sections [0030], [0031], [0047] & [0066]-[0068]).
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references of Stalder and Clark teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Stalder further discloses “…wherein at least some of the rib well sections intersect with respective multiple leg well sections, or wherein at least some of the leg well sections are intersected by multiple rib well sections” (Stalder: Sections [0030], [0031] & [0043]-[0050])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalder et al. (US 2014/0345861), in view of Clark et al. (US 2009/0255661), further in view of Stanecki et al. (US 2015/0198022).
With respect to Claim 13, the combined references of Stalder and Clark teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Stalder further teaches the method with respect to addressing problems associated with well collapse, and establishing/maintaining communication of wells in the Athabasca oil sands (Stalder: Section [0024]). The combined references, however, fail to disclose the method in combination with “…completing at least one of the rib well sections with a liner prior to producing” as instantly claimed.
Stanecki teaches methods of configuring wells for steam based production therein, wherein similar problems in Athabasca oil sands are taught to be addressed with a liner (Stanecki: Sections [0004], [0013], [0043] & [0044]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Stalder and Clark with the aforementioned teachings of Stanecki to employ a liner as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish/maintain well communication and/or improve hydrocarbon recovery. (Stanecki: Sections [0004], [0013], [0043] & [0044]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wheeler et al. (US 2019/0017360) discloses methods of recovering hydrocarbons from a subterranean formation with multilateral wells in various configurations.
Benson et al. (US 2023/0069702) discloses methods for drilling wells in a subterranean formation with multilateral wells and intersecting wells in various configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights