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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments and explanation regarding claims 4-7.
Applicant argues that modifying Hahn with Barre would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As best understood by the Examiner intended purpose of Hahn is to provide a well in a formation in the Earth for producing hydrocarbons. A well drilled in the style of Barree would not render the borehole unsatisfactory for producing hydrocarbons.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Hahn to have more than a single turn and that Hahn’s motivation is “boundary-driven”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds this assertion to be no more than conjecture.
Hahn does state “The present invention relates to hydrocarbon fluid producing wells comprising lateral sections” and the motivation for drilling a lateral is “The lateral allows the well to come into contact with a larger amount of the producing target layer in the Earth formation.”[0003]. He does state that his turns “may be close to a drilling rights limit line of a drilling plot or fictive a hard line”[0043]. The key word is “may” and does not require “a hard line”, but would naturally be a case where a turn would be required in order to be in compliance with others’ property rights.
Applicant argues that the combination of Hahn and Barree is hindsight reconstruction.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner concedes that Barree is directed to a geothermal system, and his well design is directed at improving heat exchange process which is a “function of exposed surface area, reservoir geomechanical properties, and fracture conductivity”. These same underlying properties are directly transferable to oil and gas reservoirs. Additionally, both references are in the field of borehole drilling and design, and thus in the same field of invention. Because of this ,”same field of invention” It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look at someone else’s wellbore design for accessing more surface area and combine it with another. Applicant’s argument of “hindsight reconstruction” is not persuasive.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's arguments directed to claims 4-7 the reply filed on 8/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that these claims are directed to Species A, shown in Figure 1. This is found persuasive because it appears that figure 1 and figures 2a-c are directed at the same embodiment, notwithstanding the significant pictorial differences. Consequently claims 4,6 and 7 are no longer withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200165874 A1 to Hahn in view of US 20240418412 A1 to Barree.
Regarding claim 1: Hahn discloses 1. (Original) A hydrocarbon fluid producing well [0025] comprising a borehole in a geological formation[0002], the borehole comprising:
a first section 2 drilled from a surface in a first drilling direction at a first angle (theta 1) relative to a vertically downward direction 6 [0039];
a second section 8 drilled in a second drilling direction at a second angle (theta 2) relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein a magnitude of the second angle is larger than a magnitude of the first angle (Fig. 2);
a building section 9 connecting the first section and the second section [0039];
a third section 12 drilled in a third drilling direction at a third angle relative to the vertically downward direction
a first curved section connecting the second section and the third section (Figure 2);
However Hahn fails to disclose wherein the magnitude of the second angle and a magnitude of the third angle differ from one another by a magnitude within a range of 30 to 60 degrees; a fourth section drilled in a fourth drilling direction at a fourth angle relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein the magnitude of the third angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle differ from one another; and a second curved section connecting the third section and the fourth section.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) and that a wellbore can have any number of horizontal section and complementary transition sections[0051], wherein the angles between and lengths of different sections may vary ([0049-0050] “Although the amplitudes of the sinusoidal wellbore path 322 are illustrated as equivalent, it is understood that the amplitudes from one transition to another transition may vary during the drilling operation for the wellbore.” And ”Although the periods of the sinusoidal wellbore path 322 are illustrated as equivalent, it is understood that the periods from one transition to another transition (on the same side of the y-axis 352) may vary during the drilling operation for the wellbore.” These differences in period and amplitude naturally lead to differing angles between sections, in other words, the shown sections of for example 334 and 342 are discloses as optionally not parallel. (“may vary”) ). And the angle between 330 (2nd leg) and 334 (3rd leg) is between 30 and 60 degrees (clear from figure 3)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn, and drill his wellbore in a geometry wherein the magnitude of the second angle and a magnitude of the third angle differ from one another by a magnitude within a range of 30 to 60 degrees, in view of , in view of Barree, so as to “promote fracture interference between fracture stresses extending from the wellbore ”(Abstract). Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn and to continue his wellbore with additional horseshoe curved sections and straight sections in the same pattern as the first and second section, and thus have at least a fourth section drilled in a fourth drilling direction at a fourth angle relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein the magnitude of the third angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle differ from one another; and a second curved section connecting the third section and the fourth section, in view of Barree, in order to access more volume of a given geological formation. Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Regarding claims 2: Hahn discloses the claimed invention except explicitly 2. (Original) The hydrocarbon fluid producing well of Claim 1, wherein the magnitude of the second angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle are substantially similar.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) and that a wellbore can have any number of horizontal section and complementary transition sections[0051].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn and to continue his wellbore with additional horseshoe curved sections and straight sections in the same pattern as the first and second section, and thus have at least a fourth section drilled in a fourth drilling direction at a fourth angle relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein the magnitude of the third angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle differ from one another; and a second curved section connecting the third section and the fourth section, in view of Barree, in order to access more volume of a given geological formation. Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
The modification above is interpreted as repeating the existing pattern, and thus the limitation is considered met by the modification.
Regarding claims 3: Hahn discloses the claimed invention except explicitly 3. (Original) The hydrocarbon fluid producing well of Claim 1, wherein the second drilling direction and the fourth drilling direction are substantially parallel to one another.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) and that a wellbore can have any number of horizontal section and complementary transition sections[0051].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn and to continue his wellbore with additional horseshoe curved sections and straight sections in the same pattern as the first and second section, and thus have at least a fourth section drilled in a fourth drilling direction at a fourth angle relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein the magnitude of the third angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle differ from one another; and a second curved section connecting the third section and the fourth section, in view of Barree, in order to access more volume of a given geological formation. Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
The modification above is interpreted as repeating the existing pattern, and thus the limitation is considered met by the modification.
Regarding claims 4: Hahn discloses the claimed invention except explicitly 4.The hydrocarbon fluid producing well of Claim 1, wherein the second drilling direction and the third drilling direction are not substantially parallel to one another.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) and that a wellbore can have any number of horizontal section and complementary transition sections[0051], where the second and third section are not substantially parallel to one another.(Figure 3a)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn, and drill his wellbore in a pattern taught by Barree, in view of Barree, so as to “promote fracture interference between fracture stresses extending from the wellbore ”(Abstract). Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Hahn discloses the claimed invention except explicitly wherein the magnitude of the third angle differs from the magnitude of the second angle within a range of 40 to 50 degrees, or wherein the magnitude of the third angle differs from the magnitude of the second angle by approximately 45 degrees.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) where the magnitude of the third angle differs from the magnitude of the second angle by approximately 45 degrees (Figure 3a, between 330 and 334 is interpreted as approximately 45 degrees )
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn, and drill his wellbore in a pattern taught by Barree with an angle between the 2nd and third section be about 45 degrees , in view of Barree, so as to “promote fracture interference between fracture stresses extending from the wellbore ”(Abstract). Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the magnitude of the third angle differ from the magnitude of the second angle by approximately 45 degrees , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8: Hahn discloses the claimed invention except 8. (Original) The hydrocarbon fluid producing well of Claim 1, wherein the magnitude of the second angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle are substantially the same.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) and that a wellbore can have any number of horizontal section and complementary transition sections[0051].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn and to continue his wellbore with additional horseshoe curved sections and straight sections in the same pattern as the first and second section, and thus have at least a fourth section drilled in a fourth drilling direction at a fourth angle relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein the magnitude of the third angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle differ from one another; and a second curved section connecting the third section and the fourth section, in view of Barree, in order to access more volume of a given geological formation. Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
The modification above is interpreted as repeating the existing pattern, and thus the limitation is considered met by the modification.
Regarding claim 9: Hahn discloses 9. (Original) The hydrocarbon fluid producing well of Claim 1, wherein the second section 8, the first curved section (Figure 2), the third section 12 are all formed in a common reservoir interval.
However Hahn fails to explicitly disclose , the second curved section, and the fourth section are all formed in the common reservoir interval.
Barree teaches a wellbore with a vertical section, a building section, an first straight section, a first curved section, a second straight section, an second bend and then multiple straight sections connected by curved sections (Figure 3a) and that a wellbore can have any number of horizontal section and complementary transition sections[0051].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Hahn and to continue his wellbore with additional horseshoe curved sections and straight sections in the same pattern as the first and second section, all within of the same plane 15, and thus have at least a fourth section drilled in a fourth drilling direction at a fourth angle relative to the vertically downward direction, wherein the magnitude of the third angle and the magnitude of the fourth angle differ from one another; and a second curved section connecting the third section and the fourth section, in view of Barree, in order to access more volume of a given geological formation. Furthermore, this would amount to no more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
The modification above is interpreted as repeating the existing pattern, and thus the limitation is considered met by the modification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
