DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 I (i.e., claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estes et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0138173 A1; hereinafter “Estes”) in view of Greenly et al. (US Publication Number 2025/0101720 A1; hereinafter “Greenly”) in further view of Hess et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0248006 A1; hereinafter “Hess”).
In regard to claim 1 (and, similarly claim 9), Estes discloses: A method for drilling a secondary wellbore (304) relative to a target wellbore (302 — abstract, paragraphs [0002, 0005-0006, 0030-0038], and figure 3), the method comprising:
drilling the secondary wellbore with a bottomhole assembly (BHA) (i.e., assembly connected to 312) that extends from a drill string (312), wherein the BHA includes a magnetic field detector (314), a steering component (i.e., “steering mechanism”), a drill bit (i.e., “drill bit B”), and at least one processor (316);
configuring the magnetic field detector to detect a magnetic field generated from a magnetic source of a drilling tool disposed in the target wellbore (paragraphs [0030-0038]); and
configuring the at least one processor to i) use data output by the magnetic field detector to continually determine distance and direction or azimuth of the magnetic source relative to the BHA while drilling the secondary wellbore, and ii) use the distance and direction or azimuth of the magnetic source relative to the BHA while drilling the secondary wellbore to adjust the steering of the drilling performed by the BHA as controlled by the steering component of the BHA (paragraphs [0002, 0005-0006, 0030-0038]).
However, Estes is silent in regard to: “[...] configuring the magnetic field detector to detect a time-varying magnetic field generated from a rotating magnetic source of a drilling tool disposed in the target wellbore...”.
Nonetheless, Greenly teaches a similar type of the wellbore system which drills a wellbore based off data from ranging equipment from another offset wellbore nearby (paragraphs [0019-0025, 0036-0037]), similar to that of Estes. Greenly teaches that wellbore systems can use “[...] active and/or passive ranging methods/equipment to intersect the target wellbore(s) with the offset wellbore(s). Any suitable ranging technique may be used, including but not limited to passive magnetic ranging (e.g., using remnant magnetism of the target wellbore casing, a magnetized casing joint or a magnet deployed into the target wellbore, which is sensed using a magnetometer included in the offset wellbore drill string) or active magnetic ranging (e.g., using current injection into the formation and/or to the target wellbore casing to produce a magnetic field that is sensed using a magnetometer included in the offset wellbore drill string, or using a rotating magnet in the offset wellbore drill string to produce an alternating magnetic field that is sensed using a magnetometer included in the target wellbore)” (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the ranging equipment comprising , as taught by Estes, to also include for an active magnetic ranging comprising a time-varying magnetic field generated via rotation, as taught by Greenly, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of controlling a BHA in a wellbore to steer in a desired direction by detection of magnetic fields (paragraph [0037] — Greenly). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
Furthermore, though Estes teaches prefers using passive magnetic ranging over active magnetic ranging (as disclosed in paragraph [0031-0035] of Estes), in similar downhole systems requiring magnetic fields to be generated to guide a wellbore towards another wellbore, Hess cites: “Active magnetic ranging is preferred since it is a more reliable, robust and accurate technique compared to passive magnetic ranging” in downhole systems (paragraph [0035] — Hess).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the preferred magnetic ranging mechanism, as taught by Estes, to be active magnetic ranging over passive magnetic ranging, as taught by Hess, as it is “[...] a more reliable, robust and accurate technique compared to passive magnetic ranging” (paragraph [0035] — Hess). See MPEP 2143, section “I”, subsection “D”.
In regard to claim 4 (and, similarly claim 12), Estes further discloses: the magnetic field detector comprises a plurality of magnetometers (paragraphs [0034-0038]).
In regard to claim 5 (and, similarly claim 13), in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Estes further discloses: the time-varying (i.e., as taught by Greenly) magnetic field generated from the rotating magnetic source in the target wellbore comprises a time-varying sinusoidal (i.e., as taught by Greenly) magnetic field (i.e., as taught by Estes in view of Greenly | see claim 1 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 6 (and, similarly claim 14), in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Estes further discloses: the rotating magnetic source (i.e., as taught by Greenly) in the target wellbore is configured to generate the time-varying (i.e., as taught by Greenly) magnetic field while drilling the target wellbore (i.e., as taught by Estes in view of Greenly | see claim 1 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 7 (and, similarly claim 15), Estes further discloses: the at least one processor is configured to control steering of the drilling performed by the BHA such that the trajectory or path of the secondary wellbore follows the trajectory or path of the target wellbore (paragraphs [0030-0038]).
In regard to claim 8 (and, similarly claim 16), Estes further discloses: the steering component comprises a rotary steerable system or part thereof (paragraphs [0034-0038]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estes et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0138173 A1; hereinafter “Estes”) in view of Greenly et al. (US Publication Number 2025/0101720 A1; hereinafter “Greenly”) in further view of Hess et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0248006 A1; hereinafter “Hess”) and Sihler et al. (US Publication Number 2020/0003011 A1; hereinafter “Sihler”).
In regard to claim 2 (and, similarly claim 10), Estes further discloses: configuring the at least one processor to adjust steering of the drilling of the BHA in order to maintain a set distance and direction or azimuth relative to the target wellbore, whilst drilling the secondary wellbore with the BHA (paragraphs [0030-0038]).
However, Estes in view of Greenly and Hess is/are silent in regard to: configuring the at least one processor to adjust steering of the drilling of the BHA in order to maintain a set distance and direction or azimuth relative to the target wellbore, autonomously without surface input or interference, whilst drilling the secondary wellbore with the BHA.
Nonetheless, Sihler cites: “The rotary steering system 40 may be controlled by an operator and/or autonomously using feedback from a measurement-while-drilling system 4. The measurement-while-drilling system 42 uses one or more sensors to determine the well path or borehole drilling trajectory in three-dimensional space. The sensors in the measurement-while-drilling system 42 may provide measurements in real-time and/or may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers...” (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the process, as taught by Estes, to be autonomous, as taught by Sihler, as the “[...] court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04, section “III”). Furthermore, doing so, saves time and labor compared to manually adjusting the process.
In regard to claim 3 (and, similarly claim 11), Estes further discloses: the adjustment of the steering of the drilling of the BHA is part of a closed-loop drilling mode carried out under the control of the at least one processor (paragraphs [0030-0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate to downhole two-hole drilling systems/methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights