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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 14, 17, and 21 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6, 14, and 21 recite “parental” instead of “parent”. Claims 9 and 17 should read “non-transitory computer-readable”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown Kerr (US 20210372219 A1), hereinafter Ker, in light of Meister (US 20100139981 A1), hereinafter Mei.
With respect to claim 1, Ker discloses a method comprising: conveying a whipstock (18) into a parent wellbore; conveying a workstring (114a) into the parent wellbore (10), wherein the workstring comprises a lead mill (116a/216) and a secondary mill (218 or 220) positioned behind the lead mill along the workstring; deflecting the workstring with the whipstock to drill a lateral wellbore through a milling window of the parent wellbore and that extends from the parent wellbore (shown in figs. 3-5); monitoring the deflection based on sensor measurements of milling sensors at at least two locations in the parent wellbore, wherein the at least two locations comprise the lead mill and a position along the workstring that is closer to a surface of the parent wellbore as compared to the lead mill (pgphs. 136, 144-146); determining a first value of a deflection attribute measured by a first sensor measurement of the sensor measurements at the lead mill and a second value of the deflection attribute measured by a second sensor measurement of the sensor measurements at the position along the workstring that is closer to the surface of the parent wellbore as compared to the lead mill, wherein the deflection attribute comprises at least one of torque, direction, force, strain, or vibration (pgphs. 145, 146).
However, while Ker discloses using multiple instances of the same sensor to verify data, which would require comparing values to check for a difference, and Ker also discloses that excessive vibration resulting from too high of a weight or torque being applied, Ker fails to specifically disclose monitoring for a difference in values between sensors and adjusting a milling/drilling operation based on the difference.
Nevertheless, Mei and adjusting the operation of the workstring based on a difference in values measured by sensors at a lead and trailing cutting assembly (bit and reamer, pgphs. 55, 56, analogous to adjusting based on differences between lead and trailing mill of Ker, which also may have torque sensors as taught by Ker in pgphs. 136, 146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used differences in the torque, weight, or vibration measurements at the lead and trailing cutting members of Ker to adjust the operation of the drilling device of Ker as taught by Mei (pgphs. 55, 56), in order to be able to optimize drilling and maintain parameters within constraints, recognize critical situations easier, and to control operations in response to lithology as taught by Mei (pgphs. 54-56).
With respect to claim 2, Mei further discloses measuring, at a surface of the parent wellbore during milling wellbore through the at least one milling parameter that comprises at least one of a set-down weight of the workstring, a torque on the workstring, or rotations per unit of time of the workstring, and wherein adjusting the deflecting of the workstring is based on the at least one milling parameter (pgphs. 54-56), which would also have been obviously applicable to Ker.
With respect to claim 3, Ker further discloses wherein at least one of the milling sensors comprises at least one of a vibration sensor, a shock sensor, or a torque sensor (pgphs. 145, 146).
With respect to claim 4, Mei further discloses wherein at least one of the milling sensors comprises at least one of a three-axis vibration sensor or a three-axis shock sensor (pgph. 35, a 3 axis accelerometer can serve as either of these), also obviously applicable to Ker.
With respect to claim 5, Ker further discloses wherein at least one of the milling sensors comprises at least one of an inertial sensor, an inertial measurement unit, or an inertial navigational system (pgph. 145).
With respect to claim 6, Ker further discloses wherein the at least two locations of the milling sensors comprise the workstring above the secondary mill (pgphs. 136-138).
With respect to claim 7, Ker further discloses wherein the position along the workstring comprises the secondary mill (pgph. 136).
With respect to claim 8, Ker and Mei further disclose wherein at least one of the milling sensors comprises a torque sensor (pgph. 146), wherein the method further comprises, determining a difference between torque measured at the secondary mill and torque measured at the lead mill (discussed supra with respect to Mei); and determining whether the lead mill or the secondary mill is performing more of a cutting through the mill window based on the difference in torque measured at the secondary mill and torque measured at the lead mill (pgphs. 54-56, Mei).
Claim(s) 9-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ker and Mei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeffryes (US 20150101863 A1), hereinafter Jeff.
With respect to claim 9, these limitations are substantially similar to those of claim 1, rejected supra, except for the processor and instructions, which Ker fails to disclose.
Nevertheless, Jeff discloses using a processor and one or more computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations of drilling a sidetrack wellbore using a whipstock, a lead mill, and data from sensors (pgphs. 60, 61, Jeff).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a processor and instructions to perform the drilling, comparison, and adjusting of Ker in light of Mei as taught by Jeff (pgphs. 60, 61), since this is the application of a known technique in a similar device to improve it in the same way with predictable and obvious results and a reasonable expectation for success.
The limitations of claims 10-23 are substantially similar to those of claim 1-8, rejected supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220162922 A1 also discloses drilling a window and lateral from a whipstock using sensor data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 09/16/2026
Prosecution Insights