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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 27th, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 10 now recite the term “coating parameter”. This term is not used in the specification. This term is understood to mean a parameter or characteristic specifically related to the coating, such as a coating composition (e.g. liquid, powder or combination coatings, see specification, para. [0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 27th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Green et al. operates independently of downhole conditions and Green et al. does not disclose coating formulas that can be adjusted nor dynamically altering coating chemistry (Remarks, pages 14-16). However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., altering coating chemistry) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Conners teaches a method which may use a resin-coated proppant (para. [0017]) where metrics are determined using signals from a wellbore (para. [0037]) and where a proppant amount (a volume, para. [0039], as required to meet different concentrations, pars. [0107]-[0108]) may be changed (change in proppant schedule or design, para. [0176]) in response to pressure signals downhole (in the wellbore, para. [0037]) where the metrics are compared in real-time (para. [0176]) and a “coating formula” would broadly include an amount of proppant.
Again, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, supra. Thus, it would have been obvious to change the coating formula by changing the amount of proppant processed by the system of Green et al. based on the downhole condition of pressure (Conners, para. [0037]) and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Conners does not disclose coating proppants at the well-site or switching proppant coating formulas and Connors treats proppants whether coated or uncoated – as a component of the injected fluid rather than as a material whose surface coating is adaptively modified based on frac control system feedback (Remarks, pages 16-17). Again, the claims do not recite that the “surface coating is adaptively modified” and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra and In re Merck & Co., supra. In this case, Conners teaches that coated proppants may be used (para. [0030]) and where pressure signals from a wellbore (para. [0037]) may be used to make “a change in proppant schedule or design” (para. [0176]) such as an amount of proppant (a volume, para. [0039], as required to meet different concentrations, pars. [0107]-[0108]) and in modifying the disclosure of Green et al. with the teaching of Conners, using a different amount of proppant would broadly require “adjusting coating operations” and would constitute a second formula. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Bhardwaj et al. does not disclose coating proppant at the well site, a mobile coating unit nor switching between proppant coating formulas based on real-time downhole conditions and references to “proppant concentration” or “proppant amount” relate to how much proppant is pumped rather than modifying surface coatings (Remarks, pages 15-16). Again, the claims never recite “modifying surface coatings” and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra and In re Merck & Co., supra. In this case, Bhardwaj et al. teaches a method for hydraulic fracturing (Abstract) with a frac control system (such as computer equipment associated with controller 108, para. [0051]) that monitors real-time (pars. [0045], [0050], and [0055]) down-hole conditions in the well (para. [0055]) and is programmed with a frac plan (HF job plan, Abstract) for the well-site and where proppant amount, concentration, type (mesh size) may be varied based on computations (para. [0063]) and in modifying Green et al. with the teaching of Bhardwaj et al., using a different amount of proppant would broadly require “adjusting coating operations” in the system of Green et al. and would constitute a second formula.
Further, Bhardwaj et al. is relied upon to teach a frac control system (such as computer equipment associated with controller 108, para. [0051]) that monitors real-time (pars. [0045], [0050], and [0055]) down-hole conditions in the well (para. [0055]) and is programmed with a frac plan (HF job plan, abstract) and the coating system of Green et al. would be fully capable of delivering coated-proppant as part of a fracturing system using a programmed frac plan as taught by Bhardwaj et al. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Oehring does not disclose coating proppant in a distinct operation, a mobile coating unit or adjusting coating formulas based on downhole conditions (Remarks, page 18). While Oehring is no longer relied upon in the new grounds of rejection which follow below, Applicant’s arguments may be applicable to the new rejections. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra and In re Merck & Co., supra. In this case, Oehring was merely relied upon to teach the use of a frac van. The Examiner respectfully contends that locating a control system in a frac van would produce only the predictable result of providing a control system which may be easily moved between well-sites and the argument is not persuasive.
Finally, the Applicant argues that Nguyen “N610” does not teach modifying coating operations in response to real-time downhole conditions (Remarks, pages 18-19) and “N610” does not teach a frac van, frac control system selecting coating formulas, or switching between first and second coating formulas. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra and In re Merck & Co., supra. In this case, “N610” is merely relied upon to teach a blender and placement of a blender while modifying coating operations in response to real-time downhole conditions, such as pressure, and changing formulas is disclosed by Green et al. in view of the teachings of Conners as discussed above, a frac van is disclosed by Jaaskelainen et al. (US 20220112796, see new ground of rejection which follows below) and the use of a frac control system is disclosed by Green et al. in view of the teachings of Bhardwaj et al. as discussed above. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
It is noted that claim 24 would likely be allowable by specifying that the second formula includes a different coating than the first formula, e.g. by adding “wherein the first coated proppant has a first coating and the second coated proppant has a second coating; and wherein the first coating is different than the second coating” or similar to the end of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “a scale inhibitor a breaker” in lines 5-6 which should have a comma as: “a scale inhibitor, a breaker”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US 20150360188) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20200032136) hereinafter “N136”, Noles (US 20120127822), Conners (US 20210396113), Bhardwaj et al. (US 20210406792), Jaaskelainen et al. (US 20220112796), Nguyen et al. (US 20190309610) hereinafter “N610”, Sinclair et al. (US 20070036977), West (US 4448535) and Adams (US 4716932).
Regarding claim 24, Green et al. discloses a method for coating a proppant (para. [0016]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
381
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Green et al. discloses the method comprises providing a mobile coating unit (Fig. 4, shown above) at the well-site (pars. [0048] & [0056]), the mobile coating unit comprises a platform having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 4), a liquid additive dispenser supported by the platform (liquid and/or solid additive, pars. [0017]-[0018], where the system is disposed on a vehicle, para. [0019]), a volumetric powder dispenser supported by the platform (chemicals are added via metering devices, para. [0044], liquid and solid chemicals are delivered from sources 413a-e via lines 412a-e which may be located on the platform: “the same unit as the mixer”, Fig. 4, para. [0047]), a coating mixer (mixer 404) supported by the platform (Fig. 4), and a control unit (pars. [0051] and [0054]) operably connected to the liquid additive dispenser, the volumetric powder dispenser, and the coating mixer (para. [0054]); positioning the mobile coating unit on the well-site (pars. [0048] & [0056]) adjacent a source of proppant with the platform’s proximal end toward the source of proppant (proppant received from the proppant source via inlet port 405, para. [0047]).
Insomuch as Green et al. does not explicitly disclose the mobile coating unit is part of a fracturing system; N136 discloses a proppant coating process which is part of a fracturing system (Fig. 1, proppant source 110 is combined with polymer source 150 to form a coated proppant, pars. [0018] and [0032], which is directed to fracturing equipment, equipment 180 and then a wellhead 190).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. where the mobile coating unit is part of a fracturing system.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a coating system coupled to a wellsite (Green et al., para. [0036]) such as part of a fracturing system to perform on-the-fly coating and proppant delivery (N136, para. [0020]).
Green et al. discloses that a control system is utilized (para. [0051]), but does not expressly disclose its location.
However, Noles teaches a mixing method (polymer blending, abstract) for use in hydraulic fracturing process (pars. [0007]-[0008]) wherein the system is disposed on a platform (trailer 80) and includes a liquid additive dispenser (source 43, chemical injection pump 45) and Noles further teaches the control system (controller 15) is also located on the trailer at any convenient location (para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the control unit is supported by the platform.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to locate the control unit such that it is supported by the platform and in locating the control unit such that it is supported by the platform, the operation of the system used by the method would not otherwise be modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Green et al. does not disclose a frac control system.
However, Bhardwaj et al. teaches a method for hydraulic fracturing (abstract) with a frac control system (such as computer equipment associated with controller 108, para. [0051]) that monitors real-time (pars. [0045], [0050], and [0055]) down-hole conditions in the well (para. [0055]) and is programmed with a frac plan (HF job plan, Abstract) for the well-site where proppant amount, concentration, type (mesh size) may be varied based on computations (para. [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the method includes wherein the mobile coating unit is operably connected to a frac control system which monitors real-time, downhole conditions in the well and which is programmed with a frac plan for the well-site.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a frac control system with a programmed frac plan in order to monitor downhole conditions and thereby make adjustments to the amount of proppant (Bhardwaj et al., para. [0063]) for more efficient operations.
Green et al. does not disclose a frac van.
However, Jaaskelainen et al. discloses a fracturing control method where proppant formulas are adjusted (at least adjusted in that an amount of proppant is changed, para. [0097]) based on sensor feedback (para. [0097]) and Jaaskelainen et al. teaches the use of a frac van (data van, pars. [0025] and [0046]) at a well-site (Fig. 5) as a control system (central control unit, para. [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. to further include providing a frac van at the well-site which comprises the frac control system.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a frac van as a control system for fracturing operations to achieve the predictable result of providing a control system which may be easily moved between well-sites.
Further, Conners teaches a method which may use a resin-coated proppant (para. [0017]) where metrics are determined using signals from a wellbore (para. [0037]) and a different proppant may be used based on the metrics (change in proppant schedule or design, para. [0176]) which are derived from pressure signals downhole (in the wellbore, para. [0037]) where the metrics are compared in real time (para. [0176]) to make changes to the proppant (“a change in proppant schedule or design”, para. [0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the method includes providing a frac van (Jaaskelainen et al., data van or control van, pars. [0025] and [0046]) on a well-site, wherein the frac van comprises a frac control system (Bhardwaj et al., pars. [0051] & [0055]) that monitors real-time (Bhardwaj et al., pars. [0045], [0050], and [0055], Conners, para. [0176]), down-hole conditions in the well (Bhardwaj et al., para. [0055], Conners, para. [0037]) and is programmed with a frac plan for the well-site (Bhardwaj et al., HF job plan, Abstract) wherein the mobile coating unit (Green et al., Fig. 4) is operably connected to the frac control system.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize real-time data to determine a change to the proppant formula in order to better control and tailor the method (Conners, para. [0112]) and to utilize a frac control system programmed with a frac plan in order to more efficiently conduct hydraulic fracturing and allow for real-time improvements to the job plan (Bhardwaj et al., para. [0045]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known devices for processing data and housing control systems on a hydraulic fracturing site such as by using a frac van (Jaaskelainen et al., para. [0025]).
Green et al. does not expressly disclose a blender.
However, N610 teaches a method for coating a proppant (abstract, Fig. 5) wherein the coating chemical is added in a coating mixer (geopolymer coating may be added in the mixing bin 510, para. [0041]) and is then sent to a blender (mixing tub 514, pars. [0018] & [0037]) on a well-site (“on the fly before being placed in a wellbore”, para. [0016], shown at the well-site, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the method includes positioning the mobile coating unit (Green et al., Fig. 4) on the well-site between a source of proppant (Green et al., para. [0047]) and a blender (N610, mixing tub 514) with the platform’s proximal end (Green et al., annotated above) toward the source of proppant (Green et al., near inlet 405) and the platform’s distal end (Green et al., annotated above) toward the blender (Green et al., near discharge 409, Fig. 4).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the proppant to produce coated proppant and to add the coated proppant to a fracturing fluid on the well-site in order to facilitate on-the-fly delivery of fracturing fluid (N610, para. [0016]).
The combined teachings of the above cited references disclose controlling coating operations of the mobile coating unit based on real-time (Bhardwaj et al., pars. [0045], [0050], and [0055], Conners, para. [0176]), down-hole conditions (Bhardwaj et al., para. [0055], Conners, para. [0037]) monitored by the frac control system (Bhardwaj et al., pars. [0051] & [0055]), wherein the frac control system selects a first formula that is communicated to the mobile coating unit control unit and produces a first coated proppant (Bhardwaj et al., such as part of the original frac plan, para. [0044]) and adjusting coating operations of the mobile coating unit based on real-time, down-hole conditions monitored by the frac control system (Bhardwaj et al., to improve the plan based on real-time information, para. [0045], such as by changing proppant type, size, concentration and mass, and pumping rate, para. [0002], Conners, changing proppant in response to real-time conditions: “change in proppant schedule or design”, para. [0176], Jaaskelainen et al., make adjustments based on real-time sensor data, para. [0050], such as to an amount of proppant, para. [0097]), wherein the frac control system selects a second formula that is communicated to the mobile coating unit control unit (process control system, Green et al., pars. [0051] & [0054]) and produces a second coated proppant (where a change in the proppant or amount of proppant, Bhardwaj et al., para. [0002], Conners, para. [0176], Jaaskelainen et al., para. [0097], would constitute a second formula).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Green et al. to allow for adjusting the proppant (Conners, “change in proppant schedule or design”, para. [0176]) based on real-time down hole conditions in order to better control and tailor the method (Conners, para. [0112], Bhardwaj et al., to improve the plan based on real-time information, para. [0045], such as by changing proppant type, size, concentration and mass, and pumping rate, para. [0002]).
Assuming arguendo that Green et al. does not teach a powder dispenser, Sinclair et al. teaches a method for coating proppants (abstract) where the coating chemicals may be liquid or powder (para. [0063]) or otherwise powders may be used as reinforcing agents (para. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the method includes using powder/solid ingredients.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use solid ingredients in powder form to facilitate mixing and transporting ingredients.
Assuming arguendo that Green et al. does not teach a volumetric powder dispenser; West teaches a method using a truck mounted system for mixing fluid including a proppant (sand, col., lines 5-15) wherein a liquid additive dispenser (pumps 30-31, col. 3, lines 53-55) and a volumetric dispenser (screw type feed pump 27 and 28) are supported on a platform (apparatus 10 or frame 11, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Likewise, Adams teaches a method using a platform mounted system for producing a fracturing fluid with proppants (col. 1, lines 5-15) and Adams teaches solids are added via volumetric dispenser (col. 3, lines 39-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein a volumetric dispenser for powder is supported by the platform.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize known dispensers used to dispense powdered (West, col. 1, lines 19-23, Sinclair et al., para. [0063]) solids such as a volumetric screw feeder (West, col. 3, lines 46-47, Adams, col. 3, lines 39-40) to achieve the predictable result of feeding powder.
Regarding claim 25, Green et al. does not expressly disclose adjusting coating operations based on down-hole conditions.
However, Conners who teaches adjusting proppants as discussed for claim 24 above, further teaches wherein the adjusting is based on one down-hole well condition selected from the group of: ….pressure (metrics used to change proppant schedule or design, para. [0176] are derived from pressure signals, para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the adjusting is based on the down-hole well condition of pressure.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the proppant based on pressure to better control and tailor the method (Conners, para. [0112]).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US 20150360188) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20200032136 ) hereinafter “N136”, Noles (US 20120127822), Conners (US 20210396113), Bhardwaj et al. (US 20210406792), Jaaskelainen et al. (US 20220112796), Nguyen et al. (US 20190309610) hereinafter “N610”, Sinclair et al. (US 20070036977), West (US 4448535) and Adams (US 4716932) as applied to claim 24 above and in further view of Nguyen et al. (US 20140076558) hereinafter“N558” .
Regarding claim 26, Green et al. does not expressly disclose pumping, after producing the first coated proppant and within three (3) days of producing the first coated proppant, into a well head a fracturing fluid containing the first coated proppant.
However, N610 teaches “on the fly” (para. [0016]) mixing and delivery which presumably occurs in less than three days; otherwise N558 teaches that resin compounds for coating proppants may have short shelf lives (less than four hours, para. [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the method includes pumping, after producing the first coated proppant and within three (3) days of producing the first coated proppant, into a well head a fracturing fluid containing the first coated proppant.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pump the fracturing fluid in less than three days in order to achieve on the fly delivery (N610, para. [0016]) or to avoid expiration of the coating (N558, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 27, Green et al. does not expressly disclose pumping, after producing the second coated proppant and within four (4) days of producing the second coated proppant, into a well head a second fracturing fluid containing the second coated proppant.
However, N610 teaches “on the fly” (para. [0016]) mixing and delivery which presumably occurs in less than three days otherwise N558 teaches that resin compounds for coating proppants may have short shelf lives (less than four hours, para. [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the method also includes pumping, after producing the second coated proppant and within four (4) days of producing the second coated proppant, into a well head a second fracturing fluid containing the second coated proppant.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pump both the first and second coated proppants via fracturing fluids into the well head in less than four days in order to achieve on the fly delivery (N610, para. [0016]) or to avoid expiration of the coatings (N558, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 28, Green et al. does not disclose adjusting coating operations.
However, Conners who teaches adjusting proppants as discussed for claim 24 above, further teaches wherein the adjusting is based on one down-hole well condition selected from the group of: ….pressure (metrics used to change proppant schedule or design, para. [0176] are derived from pressure signals, para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the adjusting is based on the down-hole well condition of pressure.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the proppant based on pressure to better control and tailor the method (Conners, para. [0112]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US 20150360188) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20200032136 ) hereinafter “N136”, Noles (US 20120127822), Conners (US 20210396113), Bhardwaj et al. (US 20210406792), Jaaskelainen et al. (US 20220112796), Nguyen et al. (US 20190309610) hereinafter “N610”, Sinclair et al. (US 20070036977), West (US 4448535), Adams (US 4716932) and Nguyen et al. (US 20140076558) hereinafter “N558” as applied to claim 28 above and in further view of Bulova et al. (attached WO 2018117890).
Regarding claim 29, Green et al. does not disclose adjusting.
However, Bhardwaj et al. further teaches machine learned procedures (para. [0001]) that have been programmed into the frac control system (Bhardwaj et al., pars. [0051] & [0055]) and Bulova et al. teaches a hydraulic fracturing method (abstract) which may use coated proppant (para. [0086]) and the use of machine learning in order to determine treatment parameters such as proppant concentration (para. [0052]) and proppant types (para. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Green et al. wherein the adjusting is accomplished in accordance with machine learned procedures that have been programmed into the frac control system.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use machine learned procedures programmed into the frac control system in order to improve efficiency (Bhardwaj et al., para. [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claim 14 is objected to, but would be allowable upon resolution of the objection discussed above (see Claim Objections section above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses automated proppant coating methods which are capable of producing multiple proppant types on a well-site using a mobile coating unit and the prior art of record includes fracturing methods using coated proppants where the type and amount of proppant may be changed based on downhole conditions.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method for producing a coated proppant or a method for coating a proppant comprising providing a mobile coating unit having component dispensers, a coating mixer and a control unit and which includes coating a portion of the proppant with a formula programmed into the control unit to form a coated proppant, dispensing the coated proppant, and modifying the formula to adjust at least one coating parameter in response to changing real-time downhole conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Salla et al. (US 20170327729) discloses detecting downhole conditions using spectroscopy to determine coating compatibility or condition (para. [0015]).
Potty et al. (US 11319790) discloses real-time monitoring of a fracturing operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774