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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response of 5/26/26 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the limitation regarding, “the diverting agent blocking the fluid flow through a first set of perforations in the perforated section, thereby increasing a flow rate of the fluid flow in the annulus surrounding the tubular string” is not taught by the prior art. Applicant cites passages in Funkhouser, e.g. Para 0018, and discusses e.g. “there is little to no fluid flow past the flow restrictor”. It is unclear what point applicant is trying to make. The flow rate increased is “the fluid flow in the annulus surrounding the tubular string”. The tubular string (and thus the annulus in which fluid flow is increased) is above the flow restrictor 30. The examiner reasons that there is a volumetric flow rate which is introduced into the well. This volumetric flow rate, prior to plugging can be represented, a flow rate which is introduced into the well, being divided into flow in an annulus and flow into the formation via perforations: Qintroduced = Qannular + Qperforation. After to plugging the perforations, there will no longer be flow into the perforation (or reduced flow through the perforation), there will be a corresponding increase in annular flow rate for a given flow rate introduced into the well. This can be represented as: Qintroduced = Qannular. The examiner reasons that the volumetric flow rate (particularly given, as applicant has conceded “there is little to no fluid flow past the flow restrictor”), the inability for fluid to flow into the perforations will result in an increase in the annular flow rate.
This technical reasoning is in line with applicant’s own explanation as to how applicant’s invention works: “the flow rate in the annulus 36 surrounding the lower bottom hole assembly 18 is increased by blocking flow of the fluid 38 into perforations 34 uphole of the bottom hole assembly 18” (see page 8 of applicant’s specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 4-5, 10-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funkhouser (US 20210270101 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Funkhouser teaches a method for use with a subterranean well, the method comprising:
deploying a tubular string (Fig 2, string 28, see Para 0016 included coiled tubing) into a perforated section of a wellbore (Fig 2, deployed in wellbore 12, with perforations 20); and
introducing a diverting agent (Fig 3, Para 0025, agent 34) into a fluid flow in an annulus surrounding the tubular string (Fig 3, Para 0026, 34 may be conveyed through the wellbore 12 by the flow of the fluid 32), the diverting agent blocking the fluid flow through a first set of perforations in the perforated section (Para 0025, “plugging devices 34 sealingly engage and block flow through the perforations 20”), thereby increasing a flow rate of the fluid flow in the annulus surrounding the tubular string (Para 0025, “plugging devices 34 sealingly engage and block flow through the perforations 20”; blocking flow through the perforations would at least increase the annular volumetric flow rate by decreasing the amount of fluid flowing through perforations) and advancing the tubular string through the wellbore (Fig 4, Para 0031, the string with BHA 30 is then advanced through wellbore 12, as seen; Para 0017, “flow of a fluid 32 through the wellbore may be used to “push” the tool assembly”).
Regarding claim 4, Funkhouser teaches in which the first set of the perforations blocked by the diverting agent are positioned uphole relative to a second set of the perforations that are not blocked by the diverting agent (Fig 3, perforations 20 that are below 30 are unblocked and a second set).
Regarding claim 5, Funkhouser teaches in which the flow rate increasing comprises increasing a fluid drag force on the tubular string (as discussed in the parent claim, Para 0025, increasing flow rate would necessarily increase drag force per the drag force equation).
Regarding claim 10, Funkhouser teaches after the tubular string advancing, the diverting agent degrading in the well, thereby unblocking the first set of the perforations (Para 0027, “the diverter or plugging devices 34 may be degradable downhole”; see also Fig 4-5, this degrading must occur after the string is advanced as the perforations are still plugged after advancement).
Regarding claim 11, Funkhouser teaches after the tubular string advancing, dislodging the diverting agent with the tubular string, thereby unblocking the first set of the perforations (Para 0028, “plugging devices 34 could be dislodged from the perforations 20”; see also Fig 4-5, this dislodging must occur after the string is advanced as the perforations are still plugged after advancement).
Regarding claim 12, Funkhouser teaches a method for use with a subterranean well, the method comprising:
deploying a tubular string (Fig 2, string 28, see Para 0016 included coiled tubing) into a perforated section of a wellbore (Fig 2, deployed in wellbore 12, with perforations 20), the perforated section comprising first and second sets of perforations (Fig 2, set of perforations, above and below restrictor 30, as seen), the first set of perforations being positioned uphole of a second set of the perforations (Fig 2, first set is above and and second set is below restrictor 30, as seen); and
blocking the first set of the perforations (Fig 3, Para 0025, “plugging devices 34 sealingly engage and block flow through the perforations 20”, first set blocked in Fig 3) , thereby increasing a flow rate of fluid flow in an annulus surrounding the tubular string (Para 0025, “plugging devices 34 sealingly engage and block flow through the perforations 20”; blocking flow through the perforations would at least increase the annular volumetric flow rate by decreasing the amount of fluid flowing through perforations) and advancing the tubular string through the wellbore (Fig 4, Para 0031, the string with BHA 30 is then advanced through wellbore 12, as seen; Para 0017, “flow of a fluid 32 through the wellbore may be used to “push” the tool assembly”).
Regarding claim 13, Funkhouser teaches in which the blocking comprises introducing a diverting agent into the fluid flow (Para 0025, “plugging devices 34”).
Regarding claim 14, Funkhouser teaches in which the diverting agent comprises multiple plugging devices (Para 0025, “plugging devices 34”, multiple devices 34 seen).
Regarding claim 15, Funkhouser teaches in which the diverting agent comprises a particulate diverter (Fig 3, device 34 are particulates and a diverter, as seen).
Regarding claim 16, Funkhouser teaches after the tubular string advancing, the diverting agent degrading in the well, thereby unblocking the first set of the perforations (Para 0027, “the diverter or plugging devices 34 may be degradable downhole”; see also Fig 4-5, this degrading must occur after the string is advanced as the perforations are still plugged after advancement).
Regarding claim 17, Funkhouser teaches after the tubular string advancing, dislodging the diverting agent with the tubular string, thereby unblocking the first set of the perforations (Para 0028, “plugging devices 34 could be dislodged from the perforations 20”; see also Fig 4-5, this dislodging must occur after the string is advanced as the perforations are still plugged after advancement).
Regarding claim 20, Funkhouser teaches in which the second set of the perforations is not blocked prior to the tubular string advancing (Fig 3, the second set of perforations below 30 are unblocked, as seen).
Regarding claim 21, Funkhouser teaches in which the flow rate increasing comprises increasing a fluid drag force on the tubular string (as discussed in the parent claim, Para 0025, increasing flow rate would necessarily increase drag force per the drag force equation).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funkhouser (US 20210270101 A1), in view of Al-Mulhem (US 20200248548 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Funkhouser is silent on in which the tubular string comprises at least one vibratory tool.
Al-Mulhem teaches the tubular string comprises at least one vibratory tool (Para 0031, “If desired, multiple vibration sub tools 34 can be deployed in the same well 14”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having multiple vibratory tools on the tool string as disclosed by Al-Mulhem because it would decrease the friction between a BHA and wellbore wall to facilitate the tool being run-in hole, which would be particularly helpful in deviated wells (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 3, Funkhouser is silent on in which the tubular string comprises multiple vibratory tools.
Al-Mulhem teaches the tubular string comprises multiple vibratory tools. (Para 0031, “If desired, multiple vibration sub tools 34 can be deployed in the same well 14”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having multiple vibratory tools on the tool string as disclosed by Al-Mulhem because it would decrease the friction between a BHA and wellbore wall to facilitate the tool being run-in hole, which would be particularly helpful in deviated wells (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 18, Funkhouser is silent on in which the tubular string comprises at least one vibratory tool.
Al-Mulhem teaches the tubular string comprises at least one vibratory tool (Para 0031, “If desired, multiple vibration sub tools 34 can be deployed in the same well 14”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having multiple vibratory tools on the tool string as disclosed by Al-Mulhem because it would decrease the friction between a BHA and wellbore wall to facilitate the tool being run-in hole, which would be particularly helpful in deviated wells (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 19, Funkhouser is silent on in which the tubular string comprises multiple vibratory tools.
Al-Mulhem teaches the tubular string comprises multiple vibratory tools. (Para 0031, “If desired, multiple vibration sub tools 34 can be deployed in the same well 14”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having multiple vibratory tools on the tool string as disclosed by Al-Mulhem because it would decrease the friction between a BHA and wellbore wall to facilitate the tool being run-in hole, which would be particularly helpful in deviated wells (Para 0031).
Claim(s) 6-9 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funkhouser (US 20210270101 A1), in view of Ferguson (US 20160340994 A1).
Regarding claim 6, while Funkhouser teaches the BHA taking a variety of forms and including a variety of tools (Para 0016), Funkhouser is silent on in which the tubular string comprises a bottom hole assembly that comprises a fluid motor and a drill bit.
Ferguson teaches the tubular string comprises a bottom hole assembly (see following elements), and the bottom hole assembly comprises a fluid motor and a drill bit (Fig 4, BHA includes bit 62 and motor 60, see Para 0035).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having the tubular string comprises a bottom hole assembly of Fig 4, including the operation steps of that BHA, as disclosed by Ferguson because Funkhouser teaches a highly schematic BHA and generic means of conveyance (Para 0016). Ferguson teaches an alternate, specific conveyance, with an accompanying BHA with useful applications, such as where is a further downhole obstruction which needs to be removed, as seen in Fig 4 of Ferguson, and would be the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The elements of the combination would merely perform the same function as it does separately.
Regarding claim 7, Funkhouser as modified is silent on flowing a fluid through the fluid motor and the drill bit prior to the diverting agent introducing.
In an alternative embodiment, Ferguson teaches “casing is perforated below the plug” (Para 0025).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having perforations located below the plug 46 as disclosed by Ferguson because it is a wellbore arrangement known in the art. Locating perforation below a plug 46 would prevent fluid loss into the perforation and the modification can be implemented with a reasonable expectation of success. As a consequence of the modification, the plug 46 which must consequently be milled before accessing and introducing the diverting agents. See Para 0037 of Ferguson, the flow of fluid through the motor and bit is required to operate the device.
Regarding claim 8, Funkhouser is silent on flowing a fluid through the fluid motor and the drill bit after the diverting agent introducing.
In an alternative embodiment, Ferguson teaches casing is perforated above the plug (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having perforations located above the plug 46 as disclosed by Ferguson because it is a wellbore arrangement known in the art. Locating perforation above a plug 46 would prevent fluid loss into the well portions below the plug, which would require more treatment fluid then required, and the modification can be implemented with a reasonable expectation of success. As a consequence of the modification, the plug 46 is consequently be milled after accessing and introducing the diverting agents to plug the perforations. See Para 0037 of Ferguson, the flow of fluid through the motor and bit is required to operate the device.
Regarding claim 9, Funkhouser as modified teaches on flowing a fluid through the fluid motor and the drill bit concurrently with the advancing (Fig 4 of Ferguson, fluid 42 flows in the annulus to advance the BHA as seen, as well as through the motor/bit, as seen).
Regarding claim 22, while Funkhouser teaches the BHA taking a variety of forms and including a variety of tools (Para 0016), Funkhouser is silent on in which the tubular string comprises a bottom hole assembly that comprises a fluid motor and a drill bit.
Ferguson teaches the tubular string comprises a bottom hole assembly (see following elements), and the bottom hole assembly comprises a fluid motor and a drill bit (Fig 4, BHA includes bit 62 and motor 60, see Para 0035).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having the tubular string comprises a bottom hole assembly of Fig 4, including the operation steps of that BHA, as disclosed by Ferguson because Funkhouser teaches a highly schematic BHA and generic means of conveyance (Para 0016). Ferguson teaches an alternate, specific conveyance, with an accompanying BHA with useful applications, such as where is a further downhole obstruction which needs to be removed, as seen in Fig 4 of Ferguson, and would be the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The elements of the combination would merely perform the same function as it does separately.
Regarding claim 23, Funkhouser is silent on flowing a fluid through the fluid motor and the drill bit prior to the blocking.
In an alternative embodiment, Ferguson teaches “casing is perforated below the plug” (Para 0025).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having perforations located below the plug 46 as disclosed by Ferguson because it is a wellbore arrangement known in the art. Locating perforation below a plug 46 would prevent fluid loss into the perforation and the modification can be implemented with a reasonable expectation of success. As a consequence of the modification, the plug 46 which must consequently be milled before accessing and introducing the diverting agents/the blocking step. See Para 0037 of Ferguson, the flow of fluid through the motor and bit is required to operate the device.
Regarding claim 24, Funkhouser is silent on flowing a fluid through the fluid motor and the drill bit after the blocking.
In an alternative embodiment, Ferguson teaches casing is perforated above the plug (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Funkhouser by having perforations located above the plug 46 as disclosed by Ferguson because it is a wellbore arrangement known in the art. Locating perforation above a plug 46 would prevent fluid loss into the well portions below the plug, which would require more treatment fluid then required, and the modification can be implemented with a reasonable expectation of success. As a consequence of the modification, the plug 46 is consequently be milled after accessing and introducing the diverting agents/the blocking step to plug the perforations. See Para 0037 of Ferguson, the flow of fluid through the motor and bit is required to operate the device.
Regarding claim 25, Funkhouser as modified teaches flowing a fluid through the fluid motor and the drill bit concurrently with the advancing (Fig 4 of Ferguson, fluid 42 flows in the annulus to advance the BHA as seen, as well as through the motor/bit, as seen).
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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights