DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the amendment, claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Following Applicants arguments and amendments made on 05/12/2026, the 101 rejection is still maintained. New rejection on 112(b) is added. The prior art rejection was withdrawn in view of previous amendments made on 11/05/2025. See office action for detail.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 101 arguments
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, "executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema by controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control, the at least one real-time control comprising flow rate, pressure, proppant mass, proppant concentration, chemical additive type, or chemical additive concentration." A human using the mind or pencil and paper cannot execute a subsequent wellbore stage by controlling a pump and blender system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to real-time controls such as flow rate, pressure, proppant mass, proppant concentration, chemical additive type, or chemical additive concentration. Although the claim includes computational steps, those steps are part of a physical hydraulic fracturing process and do not merely recite a mathematical relationship or calculation in isolation. Instead, claim 1 applies those determinations in the operation of hydraulic fracturing equipment by executing the subsequent stage using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema and by controlling a pump and blender system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to real-time controls. Independent claim 1 recites controlling specific physical fracturing equipment (i.e., a pump and blender system) to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to specified real-time fracturing controls. This limitation is not insignificant post-solution activity because the claimed execution step defines how the subsequent fracturing stage is physically performed by the pump and blender system using the computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema. Thus, claim 1 does not merely instruct that an abstract idea be applied in a generic technological environment. Rather, independent claim 1 recites a specific hydraulic fracturing implementation in which computed variables determined from an updated optimized perforation schema are used to execute a subsequent stage by controlling physical fracturing equipment. The ordered combination of claim elements is not merely routine data gathering, generic computer implementation, or post-solution activity. Claim 1 combines measured wellbore treatment data, stage optimization, pressure-constrained updating of an optimized perforation schema, subsequent-stage updating based on previous stages, time-saving and inventory-based stage reduction, and execution of the subsequent stage by controlling a pump and blender system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to real-time controls.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner do not consider the added limitation as Step 2A Prong 1 and instead consider as an additional element. The additional elements of “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema by controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control, the at least one real-time control comprising flow rate, pressure, proppant mass, proppant concentration, chemical additive type, or chemical additive concentration” is merely applying the results of the previously recited optimization to perform a hydraulic fracturing operation in view of para [0029-0035], [0052], [0075] and [0090]. And it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitation merely applies the output of the mathematical calculations using conventional hydraulic fracturing equipment. Specifically: “using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema” merely uses the results generated by the previously recited optimization and therefore constitutes insignificant post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g); “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore” merely carries out the result of the prior mathematical analysis and therefore constitutes post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g); “pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control” merely applies the previously calculated parameters during operation and therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution or post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g). “Controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system” merely limits use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of hydraulic fracturing and therefore constitutes a field-of-use limitation under MPEP §2106.05(h); The claim does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements including: pump and blender system, fracturing fluid, proppant and wellbore operation are interpreted as conventional components used in ordinary hydraulic fracturing operations. Specification further shows that the pump and blender system is conventional hydraulic fracturing equipment that performs ordinary pumping and mixing functions see para [0034-0035], while the mathematical optimization is completed before the execution of the stage. The claim does not recite: an improved pump and blender architecture; or an improvement in the functioning of hydraulic fracturing equipment itself. Instead, the claim merely instructs application of the previously determined mathematical optimization results using conventional hydraulic fracturing equipment. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the limitation “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema…". The phrase “computed variables” is an insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously introduce what variables are being computed. The claims fail to specify whether the computed variables refer to pressure, flow rate, proppant concentration, chemical additive concertation, or other parameters. Therefore, the scope of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 1, and thus,
claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1 as a result.
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 depend on claim 8 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 8, and thus, claims 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 8 as a result.
Claims 16-18 and 20 depend on claim 15 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 15, and thus, claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 15 as a result.
For Examination purposes, Examiner consider the “computed variables” as one or more variables that are calculated before execution the subsequent stage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-4 and 6-7 are directed to process or method, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
Claims: 8-11, 13-14 are directed to system or device, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
Claims: 15-18 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls into the one of the statutory category i.e., manufacture.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1, 8, 15 recites
generating a perforation schema based on the one or more perforation parameters; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Generating a schema involves observing data (perforation parameters), evaluating it against engineering rules, and making a judgment on the optimal design.)
training a stage optimization model based on the perforation schema and measured wellbore treatment data….to generate an optimized perforation schema having an optimized flow distribution and a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution the stage optimization model can be a machine learning model;(this limitation of training a model based on inputs to generate optimized perforation scheme recites a mathematical concepts in view of specification para [0060-0070] that describes the training/model as using mathematical relationship, calculations, predictions and optimization to generate an optimized perforation schema. The training of perforation schema and measured wellbore treatment data is recited so generically (no details are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas. Generic computer system performing a generic computer function such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
estimating a pressure of the wellbore based on the optimized perforation schema; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
and updating the optimized perforation schema until the estimated pressure is less than a predetermined pressure limit; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The idea of optimizing a system and then checking a condition (pressure limit) is a mental, logical framework. An engineer mentally understands the goal and the steps needed to achieve it.)
updating the optimized perforation schema, for a subsequent stage based on the one or more perforation parameters and one or more previous stages. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
generating a time saving parameter based on the time to complete the cluster design and the time to complete the pumping; (this is the mathematical concepts of abstract idea see equation 4 of the specification. The parameter requires data, such as the Time to Complete Cluster Design and Time to Complete Pumping) and
updating the time saving parameter by controlling an inventory until the time saving parameter is minimized to a predetermined threshold, wherein the time saving parameter reduces a number of fracturing stages, and wherein the predetermined threshold includes a reduction of at least 10% of the time to complete the cluster design and/or the time to complete pumping. (Claims involving "updating" the time saving parameter based on "minimizing" to a "threshold" are viewed as acts of evaluation and judgment. The steps of monitoring inventory and calculating a percentage reduction (10%) can be performed by a person using basic calculations, they fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of receiving one or more perforation parameters of a wellbore, measured wellbore treatment data including at least one of surface pressure, proppant concentration, fluid flow rate, or fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing data and receiving one or more completion and treatment variables associated with a time to complete a cluster design and a time to complete pumping are mere data gathering step and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim limitation of “training a stage optimization model based on the perforation schema and measured wellbore treatment data including at least one of surface pressure, proppant concentration, fluid flow rate, or fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing data to generate an optimized perforation schema having an optimized flow distribution and a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution” is also consider as merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, it’s just using generic AI or machine learning in its normal capacity. The limitation of “automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system, at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant concentration based on the updated optimized perforation schema” is merely uses the results generated by the previously recited optimization and thus, it is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) or also falls under generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that is hydraulic fracturing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema by controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control, the at least one real-time control comprising flow rate, pressure, proppant mass, proppant concentration, chemical additive type, or chemical additive concentration” as merely applying the results of the previously recited optimization to perform a hydraulic fracturing operation. However, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitation merely applies the output of the mathematical calculations using conventional hydraulic fracturing equipment. Specifically: “using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema” merely uses the results generated by the previously recited optimization and therefore constitutes insignificant post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g); “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore” merely carries out the result of the prior mathematical analysis and therefore constitutes post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g); “pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control” merely applies the previously calculated parameters during operation and therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution or post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g). “Controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system” merely limits use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of hydraulic fracturing and therefore constitutes a field-of-use limitation under MPEP §2106.05(h); The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the pump system, blender system, fracturing system, or any other technological component. The additional elements of a system comprising: a fracturing system operable to perform a perforation schema; one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors in claim 8 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors in claim 15 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of receiving one or more perforation parameters of a wellbore, measured wellbore treatment data including at least one of surface pressure, proppant concentration, fluid flow rate, or fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing data and receiving one or more completion and treatment variables associated with a time to complete a cluster design and a time to complete pumping are mere data gathering steps and thus it falls under insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The claim limitation of “training a stage optimization model based on the perforation schema and measured wellbore treatment data including at least one of surface pressure, proppant concentration, fluid flow rate, or fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing data to generate an optimized perforation schema having an optimized flow distribution and a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution” is also consider as merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, it’s just using generic AI or machine learning in its normal capacity. The limitation of “automatically adjusting, via a fracturing system, at least one of a pumping rate, a perforation gun firing sequence, or a proppant concentration based on the updated optimized perforation schema” is merely uses the results generated by the previously recited optimization and thus, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) or also falls under generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that is hydraulic fracturing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements of “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema by controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system to pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control, the at least one real-time control comprising flow rate, pressure, proppant mass, proppant concentration, chemical additive type, or chemical additive concentration” as merely applying the results of the previously recited optimization to perform a hydraulic fracturing operation. However, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitation merely applies the output of the mathematical calculations using conventional hydraulic fracturing equipment. Specifically: “using computed variables determined from the updated optimized perforation schema” merely uses the results generated by the previously recited optimization and therefore constitutes insignificant post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g); “executing the subsequent stage of the wellbore” merely carries out the result of the prior mathematical analysis and therefore constitutes post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g); “pump fracturing fluid and proppant into the wellbore according to at least one real-time control” merely applies the previously calculated parameters during operation and therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution or post-solution activity under MPEP §2106.05(g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. “Controlling a pump and blender system of the fracturing system” merely limits use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of hydraulic fracturing and therefore constitutes a field-of-use limitation under MPEP §2106.05(h); The additional elements of a system comprising: a fracturing system operable to perform a perforation schema, the fracturing system comprising a pump and blender system; one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors in claim 8 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors in claim 15 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply applying an abstract idea using a computer does not make it eligible. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2, 9 and 16 further recites wherein the stage optimization model is configured to generate a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution for each stage of the wellbore. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. If we have the flow rate data for each individual cluster in a stage, we can manually calculate the uniformity index using standard formulas or the area-weighted average. In field operations, this index is used as a proxy for cluster efficiency, often derived from measured or simulated flow distribution across the clusters. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3, 10 and 17 further recites wherein the stage optimization model is configured to generate a uniformity index of cluster flow distribution based on at least one of completion variables, treatment variables, response variables, formation characteristics, derived variables, or a combination thereof. This limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. If we have the flow rate data for each individual cluster in a stage, we can manually calculate the uniformity index using standard formulas or the area-weighted average. In field operations, this index is used as a proxy for cluster efficiency, often derived from measured or simulated flow distribution across the clusters. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4, 11 and 18 further recites wherein the stage optimization model is a machine learning model. It is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6, 13 and 20 further recites wherein the one or more completion and treatment variables include a pumping rate and a volume of pumped fluid. It is further defining claim 5, 12 and 19 which is a mere data gathering step and thus it falls under insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014); The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 and 14 further recites wherein the time to complete the cluster design is an average of an expected time of completing a stage of the wellbore. This limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections of the claims. The closest pieces of prior art are the Wang et al. (PUB NO: US 20210131261 A1). CRAMER (PUB NO: US 20220228484 A1), Shelly et al. (US20140067353A1), Dusterhoft et al. (US20170096881A1) and Lopez et al. (US20210017853A1). The closest references alone and in combination do not teach the claimed features such as
generating a time saving parameter based on the time to complete the cluster design and the time to complete the pumping; and
updating the time saving parameter by controlling an inventory until the time saving parameter is minimized to a predetermined threshold,
wherein the time saving parameter reduces a number of fracturing stages, and
wherein the predetermined threshold includes a reduction of at least 10% of the time to complete the cluster design and/or the time to complete pumping.
claimed in the claim 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are the dependent claims of claim 1. Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are the dependent claims of claim 8. Claims 16-18 and 20 are the dependent claims of claim 15. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shelley, et al. " US 20140067353 A1”.
Discussing a method of optimizing wellbore completion includes gathering wellbore data, screening and processing the gathered wellbore data, utilizing the screened and processed wellbore data to define an optimized model, and utilizing the optimized model to evaluate combinations of available wellbore completion parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights