DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 6/23/26 has been accepted.
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.
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) 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the WIPO document to Williamson et al. (WO 2016/182451, hereafter Williamson) in view of Patel et al. (US 2009/0025923, hereafter Patel).
With regards to claim 1 and 13, Williamson discloses a method of managing pressure in a wellbore having an annulus (30) defined between a wall of the wellbore and a work/completion string (10), which includes a back-pressure valve (1). The method includes performing the following operations; running the work string in hole down the wellbore while maintaining an annulus pressure and also maintaining a hydrostatic pressure within the work string above a valve (1) of the service tool, wherein the valve is configured to pressurize the annulus without pressurizing the work string (as it allows higher pressure to flow from string to wellbore, but not the reverse when being placed downhole and after) and is closed during the running of the tubular. Williamson shows all the limitations of the present invention except, it does not explicitly disclose that the work/completion string is a drill pipe which has a lower completion. Patel discloses a lower completion assembly (Fig. 1, 2; para 32, 45-47, 59-61), which includes a lower completion screen (100) and where the pipe is considered to be drill string (as it is disclosed as having wired drill pipe (WDP) communication; para 61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tubing and lower completion of Patel with the apparatus of Williamson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done because it is common knowledge in the downhole art that “tubulars” and “strings” can be classified as production strings, completion strings and drill strings interchangeably.
With regards to claim 2 and 14, Patel discloses the valve (56) is to be positioned below a crossover port (53) of the service tool that is to provide fluid flow between an inner portion and an outer portion of the work string (Fig. 2, 5).
With regards to claim 3, 15 and 22, Williamson discloses the valve (1) is configurable to be opened (8 lowers) to pump a fluid down the work string.
With regards to claim 4, modified Williamson discloses the valve (1) is closed during the running of the drill pipe, the service tool, and the lower completion in hole down the wellbore to prevent collapse of an open hole portion of the wellbore.
With regards to claim 5, 6, 16 and 24, Williamson discloses, in response to determining a forward circulation is needed to correct a wellbore issue prior to a gravel pack packer of the work string reaching a setting depth in the wellbore, flowing, via the valve (1), fluid down through the drill pipe and the service tool back up through the annulus (pg. 8:7-11); wherein the wellbore issue comprises at least one of well control, displacement, or washdown.
With regards to claim 7 and 17. Patel discloses, in response to the gravel pack packer reaching the setting depth in the wellbore, closing the back up pressure valve (56); and setting the gravel pack packer (110) with pressure down the work string (para 50).
With regards to claim 9, Patel discloses after setting the gravel pack packer (110), setting an open hole isolation packer (220); and performing a gravel pack of the wellbore (para 51).
With regards to claim 11 and 19, Williamson discloses the valve (1) comprises a back pressure valve.
With regards to claim 12 and 20, Patel discloses that the valve comprises a remotely operable valve (para 45; 56 is remotely operable).
With regards to claim 21 and 23, Williamson discloses a method of managing pressure in a wellbore having an annulus (30) defined between a wall of the wellbore and a work/completion string (10), which includes a back-pressure valve (1). The method includes performing the following operations; running the work string in hole down the wellbore while maintaining an annulus pressure and also maintaining a hydrostatic pressure within the work string above a valve (1) of the service tool, wherein the valve is configured to pressurize the annulus without pressurizing the work string (as it allows higher pressure to flow from string to wellbore, but not the reverse when being placed downhole and after) and is closed during the running of the tubular. Williamson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it does not explicitly disclose that the work/completion string is a drill pipe which has a lower completion; nor that the back pressure valve is above below a crossover port of the service tool that is to provide fluid flow between an inner portion and an outer portion of the work string. Patel discloses a lower completion assembly (Fig. 1, 2; para 32, 45-47, 59-61), which includes a lower completion screen (100) and where the pipe is considered to be drill string (as it is disclosed as having wired drill pipe (WDP) communication; para 61). In addition, Patel discloses the valve (56) is to be positioned below a crossover port (53) of the service tool that is to provide fluid flow between an inner portion and an outer portion of the work string (Fig. 2, 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tubing, valve and lower completion of Patel with the apparatus of Williamson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done because it is common knowledge in the downhole art that “tubulars” and “strings” can be classified as production strings, completion strings and drill strings interchangeably.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Patel as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Corbett (US 2004/0069489).
With regards to claim 8 modified Williamson shows all the limitation of the present invention except, it fails to disclose closing the valve comprises dropping an object down the drill pipe and onto the valve. Corbett discloses a gravel pack crossover tool with a back pressure valve (66). It includes a ball seat (16’) for engaging a dropped ball the clove the valve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dropped ball of Corbett and the apparatus of modified Williamson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would be done to allow for the increase in the tubular pressure for the setting of the packer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 18 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the assertion of the applicant that Williamson is not directed towards a “gravel-packing service tool”. The examiner agrees with this assertion, and notes that the claims as recited do not require this limitation. The preamble of claim 1, for example, recites a drill pipe, lower completion and “service tool”. Claims 5-10, 16-18, 24 and 25 bring in language that includes gravel-packing. These claims are rejected as stated above with the combination of Williamson and Patel. And the Examiner disagrees with the assertion that the combination “still lacks a valve of the service tool configured to pressurize the annulus without pressurizing the work string”. In broadest terms, Williamson provides a “a valve of a service tool configured to pressurize the annulus without pressurizing the work string” in the ”gravel-packing” environment provided by Patel.
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 P STEPHENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 P STEPHENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights