DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-4 and 6-27 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the recitation of the processor alone would preclude the steps from being practically performed in the mind. Furthermore, Applicant argues that even if the seps could be performed in the mind – they aren’t because the steps are performed by a processor. Applicant further argues that independent claim 18 recites a system that includes a well log instrument, a hydraulic pump and one or more processors where each claim elements are performed by one or more processors where the hydraulic pump is controlled by one or more of the processors to fracture the formation based on the results of the computation steps. Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees based on MPEP 2106.05(a), which states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology”. All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that because independent claim 1 has been amended to receipt allowable subject matter from dependent claim 5, the other claims that depend on independent claim 1 are patentable for at least the same reasons as independent claim 1. Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner agrees that claim 1 and dependent claims associated with claim 1 (2-4, 6-14, and 21-22) may be allowable. Additionally, dependent claims 17 and 19-21 may also be allowable for similar reasons. However, independent claims 15 and 18 and some dependent claims associated with independent claims 15 and 18 are rejected based on the combination of REITSMA and PATEL. All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 18-20 and 25-27 is directed to a system, which is a machine and a statutory invention. Claim 5 is cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-27 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 15, and 18 similarly recite an abstract idea because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claim 1 recites determining, by the processor of the wellbore system, when the length-to-radius ratio is less than a threshold, wherein the threshold is between 5 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing different lengths and determining ratios as described in [0071] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites responsive to determining that the length-to-radius ratio is less than the threshold covers mental processes of assessing different lengths and determining radius ratios as described in [0019] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites predicting, by a processor of the wellbore system, a breakdown pressure associated with the formation surrounding the borehole segment based on a length of the borehole segment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of the wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the surrounding the borehole and its length as described in [0019] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation responsive to determining that the length-to-radius ratio is greater than or equal to the threshold; cover mental processes of assessing lengths and radius ratios as described in the [0019] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites determining, by the processor of the wellbore system, a characteristic diffusion time associated with a fluid diffusing into the formation surrounding the borehole segment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of the wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the diffusion time, a fluid, and the surrounding borehole segment as described in [0013] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites determining, by the processor of the wellbore system, whether the characteristic diffusion time is at least 10 times greater than an injection time associated with the fluid in the formation surrounding the borehole segment, the injection time representing a duration of time associated with the fluid being pumped into the borehole segment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of the wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the diffusion time and the injection or duration time concerning the fluid pumped into the borehole segment as described in [0014] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation responsive to determining that the characteristic diffusion time is at least 10 times greater than the injection time, cover mental processes of assessing both the diffusion and injection times as described in [0015] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites predicting, by the processor of the wellbore system, the breakdown pressure based on in-situ principal stresses acting on the borehole segment, reservoir pore pressure of the formation, and a tensile strength of the formation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of the wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the breakdown pressure, principal stresses on the borehole segment, and the tensile strength formation as described in [0015] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation responsive to determining that the characteristic diffusion time is at least 10 times less than the injection time, cover mental processes of assessing both the diffusion and injection times as described in [0015] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites predicting, by the processor of the wellbore system, the breakdown pressure based on a Poisson's ratio of the formation and a poroelastic parameter of the formation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of the wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the breakdown pressure, formation ratios, and formation parameters as described in [0015] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation responsive to determining that the characteristic diffusion time is neither at least 10 times less nor at least 10 times greater than the injection time, cover mental processes of assessing both the diffusion and injection times are within a certain range of each other as described in [0015] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation predicting by the processor of the wellbore system, the breakdown pressure based on a hydraulic property of the formation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of the wellbore system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the breakdown pressure, formation ratios, and formation parameters as described in [0015] of the specification.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 similarly recites the limitation determining, by the processor of the well bore system, a pressure for operating a hydraulic pump of the well bore system, the pressure being substantially equal to the predicted breakdown pressure, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” , “of the wellbore system,” “well log instrument,” “a hydraulic pump,” or “one or more processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the breakdown pressure formation and solution approach as described in [0013] of the specification.
Claims 15 and 18 similarly recite determining, by the processor of the wellbore system, a characteristic diffusion time associated with a fluid when the fluid is pumped into the formation surrounding the borehole segment, , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” , “of the wellbore system,” “well log instrument,” “a hydraulic pump,” or “one or more processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the breakdown pressure formation and solution approach as described in [0013] of the specification.
Claims 15 and 18 similarly recite predicting, by the processor of the wellbore system, a breakdown pressure of the formation surrounding the borehole segment using the selected breakdown pressure solution approach, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” , “of the wellbore system,” “well log instrument,” “a hydraulic pump,” or “one or more processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the breakdown pressure formation and solution approach as described in [0013] of the specification.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-27 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “processor” as in independent claims 1, 15, and 18 and dependent claim 8, “one or more processors” as in independent claim 18, “well log instrument” as in independent claims 18 and dependent claim 16, “hydraulic pump” as in independent claims 1, 15, and 18, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of receiving, at a processor of the wellbore system, a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment of the borehole, similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 15, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation of controlling, by the processor of the wellbore system, the hydraulic pump of the wellbore system to pump, the fluid into the borehole segment of the borehole at the determined pressure to fracture the formation surrounding the borehole segment at the predicted breakdown pressure, similarly recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 18, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of receiving, by the processor, an inclination angle of the borehole segment, in independent claim 8, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation of logging the borehole to produce one or more well logs and using the one or more well logs to determine the inclination angle of the borehole segments, in independent claim 9, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of selecting, by the processor of the wellbore system, a breakdown pressure solution approach based on (i) the measured length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment and (ii) the characteristic diffusion time associated with a diffusion of the fluid into the formation surrounding the borehole segment, similarly recited in independent claims 15 and 18, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation of a well log instrument operable to measure a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment of a borehole, in independent claim 18, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of a hydraulic pump operable to pump a fluid into the borehole, in independent claim 18, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of receiving the measured length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment from the well log instrument, in independent claim 18, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation of comprising before predicting the breakdown pressure, controlling, by the processor of the well bore system, the hydraulic pump of the well bore system to pump the fluid into the formation for the injection time, wherein the characteristic diffusion time is based on the fluid being pumped into the formation for the injection time, and the injection time is between 1 and 100 minutes, in dependent claim 21, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of comprising transmitting, from the processor to the hydraulic pump, instructions for pumping the fluid into the borehole segment at the determined pressure, wherein the hydraulic pump is controlled based on the instructions, similarly recited in dependent claims 22, 24, and 26, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation of wherein one or more processors are located onsite at the wellbore when performing the operations, and one or more of the operations are performed by the hydraulic pump, in dependent claim 27, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-27 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “processor” as in independent claims 1, 15, and 18 and dependent claim 8, “one or more processors” as in independent claim 18, “well log instrument” as in independent claims 18 and dependent claim 16, “hydraulic pump” as in independent claims 1, 15, and 18, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of receiving, at a processor of the wellbore system, a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment of the borehole, similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 15, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of controlling, by the processor of the wellbore system, the hydraulic pump of the wellbore system to pump, the fluid into the borehole segment of the borehole at the determined pressure to fracture the formation surrounding the borehole segment at the predicted breakdown pressure, similarly recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 18, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of receiving, by the processor an inclination angle of the borehole segment, in independent claim 8, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of logging the borehole to produce one or more well logs and using the one or more well logs to determine the inclination angle of the borehole segments, in independent claim 9, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of selecting, by the processor of the wellbore system, a breakdown pressure solution approach based on (i) the measured length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment and (ii) the characteristic diffusion time associated with a diffusion of the fluid into the formation surrounding the borehole segment, similarly recited in independent claims 15 and 18, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of a well log instrument operable to measure a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment of a borehole, in independent claim 18, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of a hydraulic pump operable to pump a fluid into the borehole, in independent claim 18, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of receiving the measured length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment from the well log instrument, in independent claim 18, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of comprising before predicting the breakdown pressure, controlling, by the processor of the well bore system, the hydraulic pump of the well bore system to pump the fluid into the formation for the injection time, wherein the characteristic diffusion time is based on the fluid being pumped into the formation for the injection time, and the injection time is between 1 and 100 minutes., in dependent claim 21, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of comprising transmitting, from the processor to the hydraulic pump, instructions for pumping the fluid into the borehole segment at the determined pressure, wherein the hydraulic pump is controlled based on the instructions, similarly recited in dependent claims 22, 24, and 26, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of wherein one or more processors are located onsite at the wellbore when performing the operations, and one or more of the operations are performed by the hydraulic pump, in dependent claim 27, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-27 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 recites “measuring the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment of the borehole,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 recite “wherein measuring the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment of the borehole comprises logging the borehole to produce one or more well logs, and using the one or more well logs to determine the length-to-radius ratio,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 recite “wherein the borehole segment is a perforation channel of the borehole,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 recite “wherein the threshold is 10,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 recite “wherein predicting the breakdown pressure based on the hydraulic property of the formation comprises predicting the breakdm.vn pressure based on the hydraulic property of the formation and a presence of filter cake or mud cake within the formation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 recite “transforming, by the processor, the in-situ principal stresses associated with formation surrounding the borehole segment based of the inclination angle of the borehole segment,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 recite “wherein predicting the breakdown pressure based on the in-situ principal stresses acting on the borehole segment, the reservoir pore pressure of the formation, and the tensile strength of the formation, comprises evaluating
PNG
media_image1.png
24
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Pb is the breakdown pressure, Ơ3 is a minimum in-situ principal stress along a first transverse direction of the borehole segment, Ơ1 is a maximum in-situ principal stress along a second transverse direction of the borehole segment, Tis the tensile strength of the formation, and P0 is the reservoir pore pressure of the borehole,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 11 recite “wherein determining the breakdown pressure based on the Poisson's ratio of the formation and the poroelastic parameter of the formation comprises evaluating:
PNG
media_image2.png
46
225
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Pb is the breakdown pressure, Ơ3 1s a minimum in-situ principal stress along a first transverse direction of the borehole segment, Ơ1 is a maximum in-situ principal stress along a second transverse direction of the borehole segment, T is the tensile strength of the formation, P0 is the reservoir pore pressure of the formation, Ơ is a Biot coefficient of effective stress of the formation, and v is a Poisson's ratio of the formation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 12 recite “wherein determining the breakdown pressure based on the length of the borehole segment and predicting the breakdown pressure based on the hydraulic property of the formation comprises determining one or more Laplace and Fourier transforms,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 13 recite “wherein determining the characteristic diffusion time associated with the fluid in the fom1ation surrounding the borehole segment comprises evaluating
PNG
media_image3.png
80
125
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where tc is the characteristic diffusion time, c is a diffusivity of the fluid in the formation, and LC is a diffusion length,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 14 recite “determining the diffusion length of the formation using a simulation model of the borehole,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 recite “measuring, by a well log instrument, the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 recite “wherein determining the characteristic diffusion time associated with the fluid when pumped into the formation surrounding the borehole segment comprises evaluating an expression as a function of a diffusivity of the fluid and a diffusion length of the formation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 19 recite “wherein selecting the breakdown pressure solution approach comprises determining when the characteristic diffusion time is at least 10 times greater than an injection time, the injection time representing a duration of time associated with the fluid being pumped into the borehole segment by the hydraulic pump,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 recite “wherein predicting the breakdown pressure comprises: responsive to determining that the characteristic diffusion time is at least 10 times greater than the injection time, predicting the breakdown pressure based on in-situ principal stresses acting on the borehole segment, a reservoir pore pressure of the formation, and a tensile strength of the formation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 recite “responsive to determining that the characteristic diffusion time is at least 10 times less than the injection time, predicting the breakdown pressure based on a Poisson's ratio of the formation and a poroelastic parameter of the formation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 recite “responsive to determining that the characteristic diffusion time is neither at least 10 times less nor at least 10 times greater than the injection time, predicting the breakdown pressure based on a hydraulic property of the formation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 23 and 25 similarly recite “wherein the characteristic diffusion time is determined based on the fluid being pumped into the formation by the hydraulic pump,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
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) 15, 16, 18, and 23-26 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REITSMA (WO 2005017308 A1), herein REITSMA, in view of PATEL (Laboratory Studies of Hydraulic Fracturing by Cyclic Injection), herein PATEL.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected because REITSMA teaches a method of hydraulic fracturing a formation of a borehole using a wellbore system, REITSMA ([pdf page 3 of 38 | Drilling System and Method] “The present invention relates to a drilling system and method for drilling a bore hole into an earth formation. The exploration and production of hydrocarbons from subsurface formations ultimately requires a method to reach for and extract the hydrocarbons from the formation. This is typically achieved by drilling a well with a drilling rig. In its simplest form, this constitutes a land-based drilling rig that is used to support and rotate a drill string, comprised of a series of drill tubulars with a drill bit mounted at the end. Furthermore, a pumping system is used to circulate a fluid, comprised of a base fluid, typically water or oil, and various additives down the drill string, the fluid then exits through the rotating drill bit and flows back to surface via the annular space formed between the borehole wall and the drill string.”)
REITSMA also teaches receiving, by a processor of the wellbore system, a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment of the borehole REITSMA ([pdf page 11 of 38 | Column 9 | Lines 27-33] “The BHA 113 in the shown embodiment also includes a telemetry package 122 that can be used to transmit pressure information, MWD/LWD information as well as drilling information to be received at the surface. A data memory including a pressure data memory may be provided for temporary storage of collected pressure data before transmittal of the information.”) See also REITSMA ([Figure 6].) See also REITSMA ([pdf 27 of 38 | lines 28-34] “the down hole sensor data at least representing down hole pressure data, and the system further comprises a surface telemetry system (well log instrument of the wellbore system) for receiving the down hole sensor data (receiving length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment), and the programmable pressure monitoring and control system is arranged to compare the predicted down hole pressure with the down hole sensor data.”)
REITSMA also teaches determining, by the processor of the well bore system, a pressure for operating a hydraulic pump of the well bore system, the pressure being substantially equal to the predicted breakdown pressure REITSMA ([pdf page 15 of 38 | Lines 19-30] “The pressure of the injection fluid in the injection fluid supply passage 141 is advantageously utilized for obtaining information relevant for determining the current bottom hole pressure (determining, by the processor of the well bore system). As long as the injection fluid is being injected into the drilling fluid return stream, the pressure of the injection fluid (a pressure for operating a hydraulic pump of the well bore system) at the injection depth can be assumed to be equal to the drilling fluid pressure (substantially equal to the predicted breakdown pressure) at the injection point 144. Thus, the pressure as determined by injection fluid pressure sensor 156 can advantageously be utilized to generate a pressure signal for use as a feedback signal for controlling or regulating the back pressure system.”)
REITSMA also teaches controlling, by the processor of the wellbore system, the hydraulic pump of the wellbore system to pump the fluid into the borehole segment of the borehole at the determined pressure to fracture the formation surrounding the borehole segment to fracture at the predicted breakdown pressure REITSMA ([pdf page 6 of 38 | Lines 29-32] “pumping a drilling fluid through the drill string into the bore hole and via the drilling fluid return passage to a drilling fluid discharge conduit arranged in fluid communication with the drilling fluid return passage.”) See also REITSMA ([pdf page 17 of 38 | Lines 10-19] “The DAPC processor 236 can suitably be a personal computer based SCADA system (controlling, by the processor of the wellbore system) running a hydraulic model and connected to the PLC 238. The DAPC processor 236 serves three functions, monitoring the state of the borehole pressure during drilling operations, predicting borehole response to continued drilling (at the predicted breakdown pressure), and issuing commands (controlling hydraulic pump of the wellbore system to pump the fluid into the borehole segment of the borehole at the determined pressure to fracture the formation surrounding the borehole segment to fracture) to the backpressure PLC to control the back pressure means 131. In addition, commands may also be issued to one or more of the primary pump means 138 and the injection fluid injection system.”)
REITSMA also teaches predicting, by the processor of the well bore system, a breakdown pressure of the formation surrounding the borehole segment using the selected breakdown pressure solution approach REITSMA ([pdf page 27 of 38 | lines 16-23] “the back pressure control means comprises a programmable pressure monitoring and control system (by the processor of the wellbore system) arranged to calculate a predicted down hole pressure (predicting, by the processor of the well bore system, a breakdown pressure) using a model and thereby utilizing least the pressure signal (using the selected breakdown pressure solution approach), compare the predicted down hole pressure to a desired down hole pressure, and to utilize the differential between the calculated and desired pressures to control said fluid back pressure means (formation surrounding the borehole segment).”)
REITSMA does not teach selecting, by the processor of the well bore system, a breakdown pressure solution approach based on (i) the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment and (ii) the characteristic diffusion time associated with the fluid.
However, PATEL teaches selecting, by the processor of the well bore system, a breakdown pressure solution approach based on (i) the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment and (ii) the characteristic diffusion time associated with the fluid PATEL (Introduction | pdf page 2 of 8 | ¶ 1] “applying a series of pressure shocks before the breakdown pressure to weaken the selected formation (selecting breakdown pressure solution approach) and cause a plurality of fractures. The pressure shocks were applied at the wellhead using an air hammer or a piston. They are transmitted to the formation face exposed at the well through column of liquid present in it.”) See also PATEL ([Section 3.5 Effect of Cyclic Injection on Fracture Permeability] “Permeability was measured on a 1 in. in diameter core plug extracted from the HF samples; these core plugs were cut parallel to borehole axis and at an azimuth and radius to capture the hydraulic fracture (based on the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment). Fig. 11 shows the position of the core plugs with reference to borehole axis.”) See also PATEL ([Section 3 Results and Discussion | pdf page 3 of 8] “The AE before the breakdown might be due to pressurization and diffusion of injected fluid into the pore space near the injection zone and local microcracking. Fig. 3 shows that a burst of activity occurs just after the breakdown pressure which might be due to redistribution of stresses near the vicinity of the hydraulic fracture just created. Thereafter, the AE rate decreases gradually during the constant injection period. It again increases near the time when the injection is stopped. This later increase in activity is thought to occur due to failure of asperities along the fracture face as they come together after injection is stopped. The pressure stabilizes at 500 psi which is equal to confining pressure or minimum applied stress.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PATEL with REITSMA as the references deal with a method of hydraulic fracturing a formation of a borehole. PATEL would modify REITSMA wherein selecting, by the processor of the well bore system, a breakdown pressure solution approach based on (i) the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment and (ii) the characteristic diffusion time associated with the fluid. The benefits of doing so were used to compare the damage around hydraulic fractures generated by conventional and cyclic injection hydraulic fracturing where the results indicated that the damage generated around hydraulic fracture by cyclic injection hydraulic fracturing of dry Tennessee sandstone is approximately twice that generated by conventional injection. (PATEL [Abstract]). Accordingly Claim 15 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected because the combination of REITSMA and PATEL teach the limitations of claim 15.
REITSMA teaches measuring, by a well log instrument, the length-to-radius ratio of the borehole segment REITSMA ([pdf 27 of 38 | lines 28-34] “the down hole sensor data at least representing down hole pressure data, and the system further comprises a surface telemetry system (measuring, by a well log instrument well log instrument of the wellbore system) for receiving the down hole sensor data (length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment), and the programmable pressure monitoring and control system is arranged to compare the predicted down hole pressure with the down hole sensor data.”)
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claim 15, with similar limitations to claim 15, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 15.
REITSMA also teaches a well log instrument operable to measure a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment REITSMA ([pdf page 11 of 38 | Lines 27-33] “The BHA 113 in the shown embodiment also includes a telemetry package 122 (a well log instrument) that can be used to transmit pressure information, MWD/LWD information as well as drilling information to (operable to measure a length-to-radius ratio of a borehole segment) be received at the surface. A data memory including a pressure data memory may be provided for temporary storage of collected pressure data before transmittal of the information.”)
REITSMA also teaches a hydraulic pump operable to pump a fluid into the borehole REITSMA ([pdf page 12 of 38 | Lines 1-4] “The reservoir 136 is in fluid communications with pump means, particularly primary pump means, comprising one or more mud pumps 138 that, in operation, pump the drilling fluid 150 through a conduit 140.”)
Claim 23
Claim 23 is rejected because the combination of REITSMA and PATEL teaches the limitations in claim 15.
REITSMA does not explicitly teach wherein the characteristic diffusion time is determined based on the fluid being pumped into the formation by the hydraulic pump.
However, PATEL teaches wherein the characteristic diffusion time is determined based on the fluid being pumped into the formation by the hydraulic pump PATEL (Results and Discussion | pdf page 3 of 8] “The AE before the breakdown might be due to pressurization and diffusion of injected fluid into the pore space near the injection zone and local microcracking. Fig. 3 shows that a burst of activity occurs just after the breakdown pressure which might be due to redistribution of stresses near the vicinity of the hydraulic fracture just created. Thereafter, the AE rate decreases gradually during the constant injection period. It again increases near the time when the injection is stopped. This later increase in activity is thought to occur due to failure of asperities along the fracture face as they come together after injection is stopped. The pressure stabilizes at 500 psi which is equal to confining pressure or minimum applied stress.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PATEL with REITSMA, as the references deal with a method of hydraulic fracturing a formation of a borehole. PATEL would modify REITSMA, wherein the characteristic diffusion time is determined based on the fluid being pumped into the formation by the hydraulic pump. The benefits of doing so were used to compare the damage around hydraulic fractures generated by conventional and cyclic injection hydraulic fracturing where the results indicated that the damage generated around hydraulic fracture by cyclic injection hydraulic fracturing of dry Tennessee sandstone is approximately twice that generated by conven