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 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) 1-6, 11-14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moncarz (US 20180274524 A1), hereinafter Mon, in light of Sonju (US 20160245550 A1), hereinafter Son.
With respect to claim 1, Mon discloses a method, comprising: in a wellbore system comprising a first surface wellbore (see fig. 1 below, taken from fig. 4 of Mon) extending from a terranean surface to a subterranean zone, a second surface wellbore (see fig. 1 below) extending from the terranean surface to the subterranean zone and a plurality of connecting wellbores (see fig. 1 below) in the subterranean zone each connecting the first and second surface wellbores, drilling a lateral wellbore (see fig. 1 below) using a drill string extending through the first surface wellbore (pgphs. 53, 58, 74).
However, Mon fails to disclose sealing as claimed.
Nevertheless, Son discloses sealing, while drilling a lateral wellbore, against flow of drilling fluid from the drill string returning towards the first surface wellbore through the connecting wellbores (pgph. 43, figs. 1, 4, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a whipstock with an anchor 6 including a seal 66 to drill the laterals from the main wellbores of Mon, thereby sealing against flow of drilling fluid towards the first wellbore of Mon from the connecting wellbores of Mon, 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.
Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
737
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Mon in light of Son further discloses beginning drilling the lateral wellbore by drilling through a sidewall of the first surface wellbore uphole from the connecting wellbores; and where sealing comprises sealing the bore of the first surface wellbore uphole from the connecting wellbores (pgphs. 53, 58, 74, Mon, when the second or third of the laterals is drilled by branching form the first wellbore using the sealing whipstock of Son, the whipstock will isolate the bore of the first wellbore uphole from two of the already formed connecting wellbores 407 as claimed).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Mon in light of Son further discloses where sealing comprises sealing the bore of the first surface wellbore downhole from the beginning of the lateral wellbore, where sealing the bore of the first surface wellbore comprises placing a whipstock with a seal in the first surface wellbore (this is how sealing whipstocks operate).
With respect to claim 5, Mon discloses drilling a second lateral wellbore using a second drill string extending through the second surface wellbore towards the first mentioned wellbore (pgphs. 53, 58, 74).
With respect to claim 6, Mon discloses where the first and second surface wellbores reside at the same wellsite and drilling the second lateral wellbore comprises drilling the second lateral wellbore parallel to and extending in the same direction as the first mentioned lateral wellbore; and comprising joining the first mentioned lateral wellbore and the second lateral wellbore at an intersection of the lateral wellbores (pgphs. 53, 58, 74).
The limitations of claims 11-14, 17, and 18 are substantially similar to those of claims 2-6, rejected supra.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mon and Son as applied to claims 1, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Rasmus (US 20130048380 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 20, Mon fails to disclose sealing around the drill string and controlling flow from the annulus as claimed.
Nevertheless, Rasmus discloses sealing an annulus around the first mentioned drill string (pgphs. 71, 178, 186, using MPD to control flow exiting the wellbore annulus requires sealing an annulus around a drill string as claimed); and where the method comprises controlling fluid flow out of an annulus port from the annulus around the first mentioned drill string at a flow rate based on a flow rate of drilling fluid supplied through the first mentioned drill string (pgphs. 71, 178, 186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used MPD equipment and sensors in both the first and second wellbores of Mon to control flow exiting the wellbore based on flow entering the wellbore in the drilling process of Mon in order to prevent excessive fluid loss or kicks as taught by Rasmus (pgphs. 71, 178, 186).
With respect to claim 16, Mon in light of Rasmus further discloses a managed pressure drilling system at the second surface wellbore (discussed supra) configured to supply fluid to the second surface wellbore based on a flow rate of drilling fluid supplied during drilling the lateral wellbore (it would be capable of this).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mon and Son as applied to claims 1, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Toews (WO 2022018674 A1).
With respect to claim 8 Mon fails to disclose drilling a lateral from a connecting wellbore as claimed.
Nevertheless, Toews discloses beginning drilling a lateral wellbore by drilling through a sidewall of one of the connecting wellbores (shown in fig. 5); and where sealing comprises sealing between the beginning of the lateral wellbore and one or more of the connecting wellbores (pgphs. 53, 58, 74, Mon, when this extra branch is drilled by branching form the connecting wellbore using the sealing whipstock of Son, the whipstock will seal between the beginning of the lateral and the already present connecting wellbores as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have drilled a lateral branch from one of the connecting wellbores of Mon as taught by Toews 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.
With respect to claim 9, Mon, Son, and Toews further discloses where a first subset of the plurality of the connecting wellbores begins from a first of the connecting wellbore and a second subset of the connecting wellbores begins from a second of the connecting wellbores (shown in fig. 5, Toews); and where sealing comprises sealing the bore of the first connecting wellbore uphole from the first subset connecting wellbores and sealing the second surface wellbore (this will be the case when using the whipstock of Son to drill all laterals from both the first and second wellbores and the connecting wellbores in the combination).
With respect to claim 15, Mon, Son, and Toews further discloses where the lateral wellbore begins at a sidewall of a first of the connecting wellbores (discussed supra) and the seal resides in a second of the connecting wellbores downhole from the beginning of the lateral wellbore and uphole from a beginning of a third connecting wellbore branching from the second connecting wellbore (this will be the case when the pattern of wellbores shown in fig. 5 is applied to the pattern shown in fig. 4 of Mon where the laterals branch from each main wellbore in opposite directions, especially considering that the seals of the whipstocks can remain in place when the whipstock is removed as taught by Son or how a whipstock is replaced by a seal as taught by Son in pgph. 43, figs. 1, 4).
With respect to claim 19, Mon, Son, and Toews further discloses where drilling the lateral wellbore comprises kicking off from one of the connecting wellbores (discussed supra); and where sealing comprises sealing the bore of a connecting wellbore with a whipstock comprising a seal (this will be the case when using the whipstock of Son).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mon, Son, and Toews as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rasmus.
With respect to claim 10, Mon discloses drilling a second lateral using a second drill string extending through the second surface wellbore toward the first mentioned lateral wellbore (pgphs. 53, 58, 74, Mon, fig. 1 above).
However, Mon fails to disclose sealing around the drill string and controlling flow from the annulus as claimed.
Nevertheless, Rasmus discloses sealing an annulus around a drill string (pgphs. 71, 178, 186, using MPD to control flow exiting the wellbore annulus requires sealing an annulus around a drill string as claimed); and controlling fluid flow out of an annulus port from the annulus around the second mentioned drill string at a flow rate based on a flow rate of drilling fluid supplied through the first mentioned drill string (pgphs. 71, 178, 186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used MPD equipment and sensors in both the first and second wellbores of Mon to control flow exiting the wellbore based on flow entering the wellbore in the drilling process of Mon in order to prevent excessive fluid loss or kicks as taught by Rasmus (pgphs. 71, 178, 186).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040007389 A1 also discloses a sealing whipstock. US 20120174581 A1 discloses a similar pattern of wells in figs. 1, 3. US 20240301874 A1 discloses using whipstocks to drill a similar well pattern in pgph. 95, 96, fig. 1.
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 08/14/2026
Prosecution Insights