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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are amended.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending.
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 6, 12, and 19 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 6, 12 and 19 recites the limitation "the shear stress". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valiveti (US 20210079779 A1) in view of Walles (US 20200225381 A1) and in further view of Welch (WO 2019238451 A1).
In claim 1, Valiveti discloses method for modeling fluid flow through a fracture (Par. 3), comprising: obtaining a geometry of the fracture (see abstract, Par. 60); determining, using a computer processor (Par. 17), a first three-dimensional (3D) aperture model of the fracture (Par. 3, 39); estimating, using the computer processor, a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture (Par. 16 “displacing”, 19 “displacements”, Par. 60 “minimum horizontal stresses”) under a stress (Par. 45 48 and 60); estimating, using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture (Par. 19 and 36-37) under a critical stress (Par. 48); determining, using the computer processor, a second 3D aperture model of the fracture, wherein the second 3D aperture model is based, at least in part, on the first 3D aperture model, the normal fracture closure displacement, and the fracture dilation (Par. 16, 62 “updated”); simulating, using the computer processor, a fluid flow through the second 3D aperture model (Par. 61-62); and determining, using the computer processor, a permeability of the second 3D aperture model, at least in part, on the simulated fluid flow (Par. 62); predicting, based on the second 3D aperture model and the determined permeability, a predicted permeability (Par. 62 “estimated permeabilities”) of an in-situ fracture (Par. 19 “obtain the fracture extension along with rock stresses” ) in a field of interest (See Fig. 1A and B examiner considers the area to be said field of interest) under a plurality of pressures (Par. 19 “rock pore pressure, fracture pressure”) and a plurality of permeabilities (Par. 62 “estimated permeabilities”); establishing a field development plan (Par. 03 “used to plan well placements and predict hydrocarbon production”, Par. 34 “development plans for a particular reservoir”) based, at least, on the predicted permeability (Par. 35 “permeability” Par. 62); determining a drilling location based on the established field development plan (Par. 32 “model facilitates placement and drilling of wells” ); and drilling a wellbore based on the determined drilling location (Par. 57 “select sites for drillers to direct boreholes, complete wells, and produce reservoir fluids in an efficient manner”).
Valiveti does not explicitly recite a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a normal stress; estimating, using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress, where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values; (Emphasis added).
Walles teaches estimating, using the computer processor, a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a normal stress (Par. 91-92 “tensile failure”, examiner notes normal fractures are also known as tensile failures, “principle stress” examiner notes that principal stresses are the maximum and minimum normal stresses); and a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model (Par. 92 “three-dimensional geomechanical model”) of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress (Par. 25 “shear under stress” 62 “ formation shear velocities”).
Welch teaches estimating, using the computer processor (see claim 24), a fracture dilation (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “fracture”) of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “shear stress”, Page 80 Lines 29-32 “tectonic deformation can typically be defined in terms of a constant effective vertical stress s,”), where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “magnitude of the shear stress” Fig. 1, 5-7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress based on the teachings of Walles in Valiveti since it was known in the art that critically stressed fractures are fractures that are favorably oriented to fail in shear under stress conditions (Walles Par. 25) and pressure required to initiate the fracture is based on principle stress (Walles Par. 91) thereby improving the modeling accuracy (Walles Par. 21 and 106) thus improving accuracy. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress, where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values as taught by Welch in the combination of Valiveti and Walles in order to allows for the generation of large, geomechanically consistent DFNs that reflect the variability in geometry, mechanical properties and in situ stress across a large geological structure (Welch Page 7 Lines 23-32) thus leading to a more effective system.
In claim 2, Valiveti discloses comprising validating the determined permeability of the second 3D aperture model using a coupled normal-shear-flow (Fig. 6, 632 Par. 69).
Valiveti does not explicitly disclose a coupled normal-shear-flow laboratory test.
Walles teaches a normal-shear-flow laboratory test (Par. 58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to use a coupled normal-shear-flow laboratory test based on the teachings of Walles in Valiveti since it was a known to use samples of fluid produced from the reservoir and collected downhole in tanks for transport to surface laboratories (Walles Par. 58) for testing and data gathering.
In claim 4, Valiveti discloses wherein obtaining the geometry of the fracture comprises measuring a surface topology of each of two fracture surfaces of the fracture (Par. 47 “topology” 6, 36 “fractures”) using a geometry measuring tool (Fig. 5 502).
In claim 9, Valiveti discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor (Par. 17), the instructions comprising functionality for: determining, a first three-dimensional (3D) aperture model of the fracture (Par. 3, 39); estimating a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture (Par. 16 “displacing”, 19 “displacements”, Par. 60 “minimum horizontal stresses”) under a stress (Par. 45 48 and 60); estimating a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture (Par. 19 and 36-37) under a critical stress (Par. 48); determining a second 3D aperture model of the fracture, wherein the second 3D aperture model is based, at least in part, on the first 3D aperture model, the normal fracture closure displacement, and the fracture dilation (Par. 16, 62 “updated”); simulating a fluid flow through the second 3D aperture model (Par. 61-62); and determining a permeability of the second 3D aperture model, at least in part, on the simulated fluid flow (Par. 62); predicting, based on the second 3D aperture model and the determined permeability, a predicted permeability (Par. 62 “estimated permeabilities”) of an in-situ fracture (Par. 19 “obtain the fracture extension along with rock stresses” ) in a field of interest (See Fig. 1A and B examiner considers the area to be said field of interest) under a plurality of pressures (Par. 19 “rock pore pressure, fracture pressure”) and a plurality of permeabilities (Par. 62 “estimated permeabilities”); establishing a field development plan (Par. 03 “used to plan well placements and predict hydrocarbon production”, Par. 34 “development plans for a particular reservoir”) based, at least, on the predicted permeability (Par. 35 “permeability” Par. 62); determining a drilling location based on the established field development plan (Par. 32 “model facilitates placement and drilling of wells” ); and drilling a wellbore based on the determined drilling location (Par. 57 “select sites for drillers to direct boreholes, complete wells, and produce reservoir fluids in an efficient manner”).
Valiveti does not explicitly teach a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a normal stress; and estimating, using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress, where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values; (Emphasis added).
Walles teaches estimating, using the computer processor, a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a normal stress (Par. 91-92 “tensile failure”, examiner notes normal fractures are also known as tensile failures, “principle stress” examiner notes that principal stresses are the maximum and minimum normal stresses); and a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model (Par. 92 “three-dimensional geomechanical model”) of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress (Par. 25 “shear under stress” 62 “ formation shear velocities”).
Welch teaches estimating, using the computer processor (see claim 24), a fracture dilation (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “fracture”) of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “shear stress”, Page 80 Lines 29-32 “tectonic deformation can typically be defined in terms of a constant effective vertical stress s,”), where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “magnitude of the shear stress” Fig. 1, 5-7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress based on the teachings of Walles in Valiveti since it was known in the art that critically stressed fractures are fractures that are favorably oriented to fail in shear under stress conditions (Walles Par. 25) and pressure required to initiate the fracture is based on principle stress (Walles Par. 91) thereby improving the modeling accuracy (Walles Par. 21 and 106) thus improving accuracy. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress, where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values as taught by Welch in the combination of Valiveti and Walles in order to allows for the generation of large, geomechanically consistent DFNs that reflect the variability in geometry, mechanical properties and in situ stress across a large geological structure (Welch Page 7 Lines 23-32) thus leading to a more effective system.
In claim 10, Valiveti discloses wherein obtaining a geometry of the fracture comprises measuring a surface topology of each of two fracture surfaces of the fracture (Par. 47 “topology” 6, 36 “fractures”) using a geometry measuring tool (Fig. 5 502).
In claim 15, Valiveti discloses comprising validating the determined permeability of the second 3D aperture model using a coupled normal-shear-flow (Fig. 6, 632 Par. 69).
Valiveti does not explicitly disclose a coupled normal-shear-flow laboratory test.
Walles teaches a normal-shear-flow laboratory test (Par. 58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to use a coupled normal-shear-flow laboratory test based on the teachings of Walles in Valiveti since it was a known to use samples of fluid produced from the reservoir and collected downhole in tanks for transport to surface laboratories (Walles Par. 58) for testing and data gathering.
In claim 16, Valiveti discloses a system comprising: a geometry measuring tool (Fig. 5 502); and a computer processor (Par. 17) configured to: obtain a geometry of the fracture (see abstract, Par. 60), a normal stress (Par. 45 48 and 60), and a critical stress (Par. 48) based on measurements of the geometry measuring tool (Fig. 5, 502, Par. 59-60); determine a first three-dimensional (3D) aperture model of the fracture (Par. 3, 39); estimate a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture (Par. 16 “displacing”, 19 “displacements”, Par. 60 “minimum horizontal stresses”) under a stress (Par. 45 48 and 60); estimate a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture (Par. 19 and 36-37) under a critical stress (Par. 48); determine a second 3D aperture model of the fracture, wherein the second 3D aperture model is based, at least in part, on the first 3D aperture model, the normal fracture closure displacement, and the fracture dilation (Par. 16, 62 “updated”); simulate a fluid flow through the second 3D aperture model (Par. 61-62); and determine a permeability of the second 3D aperture model, at least in part, on the simulated fluid flow (Par. 62); predicting, based on the second 3D aperture model and the determined permeability, a predicted permeability (Par. 62 “estimated permeabilities”) of an in-situ fracture (Par. 19 “obtain the fracture extension along with rock stresses” ) in a field of interest (See Fig. 1A and B examiner considers the area to be said field of interest) under a plurality of pressures (Par. 19 “rock pore pressure, fracture pressure”) and a plurality of permeabilities (Par. 62 “estimated permeabilities”); establishing a field development plan (Par. 03 “used to plan well placements and predict hydrocarbon production”, Par. 34 “development plans for a particular reservoir”) based, at least, on the predicted permeability (Par. 35 “permeability” Par. 62); determining a drilling location based on the established field development plan (Par. 32 “model facilitates placement and drilling of wells” ); and drilling a wellbore based on the determined drilling location (Par. 57 “select sites for drillers to direct boreholes, complete wells, and produce reservoir fluids in an efficient manner”).
Valiveti does not explicitly teach a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a normal stress; estimating, using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress, where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values; (Emphasis added).
Walles teaches estimating, using the computer processor, a normal fracture closure displacement of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a normal stress (Par. 91-92 “tensile failure”, examiner notes normal fractures are also known as tensile failures, “principle stress” examiner notes that principal stresses are the maximum and minimum normal stresses); and a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model (Par. 92 “three-dimensional geomechanical model”) of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress (Par. 25 “shear under stress” 62 “ formation shear velocities”).
Welch teaches estimating, using the computer processor (see claim 24), a fracture dilation (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “fracture”) of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “shear stress”, Page 80 Lines 29-32 “tectonic deformation can typically be defined in terms of a constant effective vertical stress s,”), where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a tectonic magnitude of the shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values (Page 24 Lines 4-15, 25-30 “magnitude of the shear stress” Fig. 1, 5-7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress based on the teachings of Walles in Valiveti since it was known in the art that critically stressed fractures are fractures that are favorably oriented to fail in shear under stress conditions (Walles Par. 25) and pressure required to initiate the fracture is based on principle stress (Walles Par. 91) thereby improving the modeling accuracy (Walles Par. 21 and 106) thus improving accuracy. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have using the computer processor, a fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under a tectonic shear stress, where the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model is based on a magnitude of the tectonic shear stress and the magnitude of the tectonic shear stress includes non-zero values as taught by Welch in the combination of Valiveti and Walles in order to allows for the generation of large, geomechanically consistent DFNs that reflect the variability in geometry, mechanical properties and in situ stress across a large geological structure (Welch Page 7 Lines 23-32) thus leading to a more effective system.
In claim 17, Valiveti discloses wherein obtaining a geometry of the fracture comprises measuring a surface topology of each of two fracture surfaces of the fracture (Par. 47 “topology” 6, 36 “fractures”) using a geometry measuring tool (Fig. 5 502).
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valiveti in view of Walles in view of Welch and in further view of The Shear Strength of Rock Joints in Theory and Practice hence forth NPL 2.
In claim 6, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model.
NPL 2 teaches estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model as taught by NPL 2 in Valiveti in order to account for an unseen joint having reduced roughness and/or increased weathering of the joint walls (NPL 2 page 49-50 point 7) thus leading to a more accurate method.
In claim 12, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model.
NPL 2 teaches estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model as taught by NPL 2 in Valiveti in order to account for an unseen joint having reduced roughness and/or increased weathering of the joint walls (NPL 2 page 49-50 point 7) thus leading to a more accurate method.
In claim 19, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model.
NPL 2 teaches estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have estimating the fracture dilation of the first 3D aperture model of the fracture under the shear stress is estimated based on a Barton and Choubey dilation model as taught by NPL 2 in Valiveti in order to account for an unseen joint having reduced roughness and/or increased weathering of the joint walls (NPL 2 page 49-50 point 7) thus leading to a more accurate method.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valiveti in view of Walles in view of Welch and in further view of Gupta (US 20190220563 A1).
In claim 7, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime.
Gupta teaches wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime (Par. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime as taught by Gupta in Valiveti in order to achieve accurate spatial reconstruction (Gupta Par. 5) thus leading to a more accurate method.
In claim 13, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime.
Gupta teaches wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime (Par. 5) with negligible gravity effects (examiner notes that when modeling laminar flow, gravitational force is often assumed to be negligible and the Navier-stokes equations used in Gupta do not account for gravity thus gravity is considered to be negligible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime as taught by Gupta in Valiveti in order to achieve accurate spatial reconstruction (Gupta Par. 5) thus leading to a more accurate method.
In claim 20, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime.
Gupta teaches wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime (Par. 5) with negligible gravity effects (examiner notes that when modeling laminar flow, gravitational force is often assumed to be negligible and the Navier-stokes equations used in Gupta do not account for gravity thus gravity is considered to be negligible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein simulating the fluid flow comprises using a Navier-Stokes equation within a laminar flow regime as taught by Gupta in Valiveti in order to achieve accurate spatial reconstruction (Gupta Par. 5) thus leading to a more accurate method.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valiveti in view of Walles in view of Welch and in further view of Sepehrnoori (US 10914140 B2).
In claim 8, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose wherein calculating the permeability of the second 3D aperture model of the fracture comprises combining Darcy's law and Cubic law.
Sepehrnoori teaches wherein calculating the permeability of the second 3D aperture model of the fracture comprises combining Darcy's law and Cubic law (Column 9 Lines 15-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein calculating the permeability of the second 3D aperture model of the fracture comprises combining Darcy's law and Cubic law as taught by Sepehrnoori in Valiveti in order to model for fractures with variable aperture (Sepehrnoori Column 9 Lines 6-40) thus leading to a more accurate method.
In claim 14, Valiveti does not explicitly disclose wherein calculating the permeability of the second 3D aperture model of the fracture comprises combining Darcy's law and Cubic law.
Sepehrnoori teaches wherein calculating the permeability of the second 3D aperture model of the fracture comprises combining Darcy's law and Cubic law (Column 9 Lines 15-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have wherein calculating the permeability of the second 3D aperture model of the fracture comprises combining Darcy's law and Cubic law as taught by Sepehrnoori in Valiveti in order to model for fractures with variable aperture (Sepehrnoori Column 9 Lines 6-40) thus leading to a more accurate method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments on pages 8-12, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the examiner agrees that the cited examples are non-limiting and notes the claims are examined under their BRI. The cited limitations are taught by the prior art as cited above. Particularly, Walles recites “Parameters of interest may include lateral tectonic strain, minimum horizontal stress” and ““natural fracture” refers to fractures resulting from causes such as tectonic stresses” Par. 123, which per Par. 99 are part of the fracture profile. Further Welch describes “magnitude of the shear stress t acting on the fracture” and later describes tectonic deformation being made up of stresses and thus considered to include “tectonic shear stress” in the magnitude of the fracture. In response to applicant's argument that Welch is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Welch is a method and a system for modeling and simulating a fractured geological structure, which is at the minimum reasonably pertinent to predicting stress-dependent fracture permeability. In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Walles for improving the modeling accuracy (Walles Par. 21 and 106) and Welch to generation of large, geomechanically consistent DFNs that reflect the variability in geometry, mechanical properties and in situ stress across a large geological structure.
Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments on pages 13-17, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the cited claims, the combination of Valiveti Walles and Welch already teach the cited elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20090065198 A1, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INCREASING PRODUCTION OF A RESERVOIR USING LATERAL WELLS; US 20080126050 A1, Method And System Of Planning Hydrocarbon Extraction From A Hydrocarbon Formation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights