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 .
Responsive to communications on 05/26/2026
Claims 1, 11, and 15 amended
Claims 9-10 and 20 canceled
Claims 2-8, 12-14, and 16-19 are original
Claims 1-8, and 11-19 pending
Claims 1-8, and 11-19 rejected
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments 35 USC § 103
Applicant arguments in reference to rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-14 over Rabbani and Xu. Applicant amended claim 1 to overcome previous rejection and provides arguments.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Argument A
Issue: Applicant argues that Rabbani does not teach or suggest the claimed cascade bridging probability evaluation or the specific inputs used to calculate that probability. Applicant summarizes the invention of Rabbani, and differentiates it from the claimed invention based on a lack of recitation of, a “cascade” bridging evaluation using various LCM sizes, use of fracture width (where the applicant argues that fracture width is different from pore throat size), shape factor, specific gravity, or more generally any probability of bridging a fracture.
Rule: MPEP 2145 (IV) states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” And MPEP 2111 “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation"
Analysis: Regarding the limitations of “fracture width” and “probability of bridging a fracture,” the examiner understands this argument to be a rediscussing of the nature of pores in the prior art in contrast to fractures in the claim. From the applicants understanding from the disclosure, the process as outlined in the specification applies to both fractures and pores and treats them both as interchangeable. Under broadest reasonable interpretation this led to the interpretation that plugging a fracture can be understood to be the same as plugging a hole. The presence of fracture width similarly leads to a similar interpretation, see par 35 “The fracture and pore characteristics may include width or characteristic size and shape factor.”, see also par 42: “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate different sized LCM disposed in a fracture or pore to form a bridge therein,” where fractures and pores are depicted as being interchangeable. Regarding the newly amended claim limitations, such as “cascade” the examiner believes that under BRI interpretation Rabbani and Xu cover predominantly these limitations. Rabbani discusses the usage of differing LCM sizes, pore size, and particle sphericity shape. The prior art of Xu relates these terms more clearly and specifically to fractures. Where Xu models these characteristics specifically for a probability of bridging, as Xu mainly discusses bridging in fractures.
Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been amended, prior art references may be introduced. Examiner believes prior art references of Rabbani and Xu make obvious the amended limitations.
Response to Argument B
Issue: Applicant argues that Rabbani does not teach or suggest the claimed permeability determination or conditional reformulation step. Applicant outlines what Rabbani performs and reiterates that it does not include the step of determining permeability though finer particulates, or a conditional check if it is sufficiently low enough followed by reformulating the LCM.
Rule: MPEP 2111.04 (II) which outlines the BRI of a contingent limitation “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Analysis: The conditional element outlined in the claim is not required as it is conditional/contingent. Please see claim interpretation below. The claimed invention requires reformulating the LCM based on a conditional check. However, this reformulation is not actually required in all embodiments of the method and under BRI, since if the formulation passes it is not reformulated. Regarding the newly amended claim limitations a new search will have to be conducted to examine the newly amended claim limitations. While the limitations are not required, the examiner still located relevant prior art to advance compact prosecution. Specifically, Kumar was used in combination to make obvious conditional reformulation based on permeability.
Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been amended, prior art references may be introduced. Examiner recommends amending the claims to ensure all claims are required to match intended scope of the invention.
Response to Argument C
Issue: Applicant argues the combination of Rabbani and Xu does not render the claimed method obvious. Applicant summarizes the invention of Xu, and states that while Xu discusses bridging and fracture concentrations, that it focuses on mechanical strength and force-chain network of the plugging zones, not on cascade probability using various LCM sizes, calculating filter cake permeability from the fraction of finer particulates, or a conditional permeability check followed by reformulation.
Further applicants argue that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine Rabbani’s pore scale deposition model with Xu’s mm scale fracture plugging simulation to arrive at the specific integrated workflow recited in claim 1. Applicant argues that the references address fundamentally different problems, (formation damage via pore plugging vs structural strength of a fracture plugging zone) and operate on different scales/physics. And that there is no teaching in the references to teach the amended claim limitations.
Rule: MPEP 2145(III) states “"It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.").” MPEP 2141.01 (a) states “When determining whether the "relevant field of endeavor" test is met, the examiner should consider "explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." …. "The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’"
Analysis: Regarding the newly amended claim limitations, a new search will have to be conducted as the scope of the claim has been changed. Regarding the assertion that the references discuss different problems, the examiner disagrees. Both references discuss the usage of LCM. Therefore, the references are in the same field of endeavor. These references are highly related to each other. Furthermore, regarding the physical scale of the inventions, this is also not a relevant criterion to the incorporation into 103 obviousness rejection. Regarding the scale of the inventions and the differences in their specific workflows, examiner notes that these particular limitations are not currently claimed and are thus not in consideration under analysis. What is important for consideration is what one ordinarily skilled in the art could glean as a whole. As understood by the examiner, the limitations of cascade probability using various LCM sizes, and calculating filter cake permeability from the fraction of finer particulates are taken from Rabbani and do not need a combination. The conditional permeability check followed by reformulation is a new limitation which will be addressed by new prior art. Specifically Kumar is introduced to make obvious the amendment in view of Rabbani.
Conclusion: Regarding whether the references teach or make obvious the newly amended limitations, more searches will need to be conducted. Regarding the assertion that the references are not combinable, or a person ordinarily skilled in the art would not combine the references, the examiner disagrees.
Regarding claims 11 and 15:
Applicants restate above arguments in relation to claims 11 and 15. Arguments to claim 1 were considered non persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 10-19:
Applicants request to make claims allowable in view of amendments to claims 1, 11, and 15. Arguments to claim 1 were considered non persuasive.
End Response to Arguments 35 USC § 103
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain conditional limitations. To advance compact prosecution, the examiner will continue to map the claims to prior art, so applicants are aware of relevant prior art to the claims. However, examiner notes to the applicant that certain claim limitations are not required. Examiner recommends amending the claims to ensure the full scope of the claims is protected.
Claim 1: determining whether the permeability of the filter cake is sufficiently low to control losses from the wellbore; if the permeability is not sufficiently low to control losses changing the formulation of the LCM; and
Examiner notes that amended claim 1 limitation recites an “if” contingent clause in the claim. Please refer to MPEP 2111.04 (II) which outlines the BRI of a contingent limitation “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B”
The above claim provides a contingent limitation. If the permeability is not sufficiently low to control losses (the condition), then change the formulation of the LCM (the step). Furthermore, the claim can be practiced without the conditional step occurring (the claim can function without modifying the LCM). Due to the presence of the contingent limitation above, this step is not required. Meaning that prior art should determine if the permeability is sufficiently low, but it is not required for prior art to change the formulation.
Claim 15: modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential
Examiner notes that claim 15 contains a contingent clause in the claim. Please refer to MPEP 2111.04 (II), where the condition is (if the LCM does not have the potential) and the conditional step is (modifying the LCM). The claim does not require the conditional step be performed if the LCM has the potential.
Claims 1, 11 and 15: “determining a permeability of filter cake formed due to the LCM “ … “wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture;”
Examiner notes that the above claim limitations contain a contingent clause in the claim. Please refer to MPEP 2111.04 (II), where the condition is (if the LCM has the potential to bridge a fracture) and the conditional step is (determine a permeability). The claim does not require the conditional step be performed if the LCM does not have potential to bridge the fracture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, and 11-19 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.
The term “finer” in claims 1, 11, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 states “determining if a lost circulation material (LCM) has the potential to bridge a fracture extending from a wellbore by evaluating a probability of bridging in a cascade using various sized LCM, the probability being based on particle size distribution of the various sized LCM, shape factor, specific gravity, concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size;” Claim 19 states “The method of claim 15, wherein determining the potential is based on size, shape, specific gravity, and concentration of the LCM, and characteristics of the fracture” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbani_2017 (“.Dynamic modeling of the formation damage and mud cake deposition using filtration theories coupled with SEM image processing”) , Xu_2021 (“Structural formation and evolution mechanisms of fracture plugging zone”) and Kumar_2011 (“Lost Circulation Control and Wellbore Strengthening: Looking Beyond Particle Size Distribution”)
Claim 1:
Rabbani_2017 makes obvious A method comprising: (page 158 section 2. Methodology) determining if a lost circulation material (LCM) (page 158 col 1 par 2: “Lost circulation material (LCM), such as Mica flakes and sized Calcium Carbonate help to diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation. In the present study, we have investigated the effects of Calcium Carbonate”) has the potential to bridge a fracture(see FIG. 4, box labeled "calculation of deposition probability in rock", [page 161]; see also FIG. 3 where "bridge" refers to "deposition inside the rock" reducing permeability of the porosity tubes, [page 160]); having a fracture width, (page 161 col 1 par 5: “The model we have selected for simulating the particulate flow through the mud cake and rock sample is a bundle of curved tubes. The size of the openings in mud cake as well as the average pore size of the rock samples is obtained by automated analysis of highresolution SEM images.”) the fracture extending from a wellbore, (par 158 col 1 par 2: “Formation of mud cakes, while strengthening the wellbore to prevent unfavorable fractures, can cause operational problems such as stuck pipe, excessive torque, and high swab and surge pressures (Tran et al., 2010; Song and Rojas, 2006; Elkatatny et al., 2011). Lost circulation material (LCM), such as Mica flakes and sized Calcium Carbonate help to diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation. In the present study, we have investigated the effects of Calcium Carbonate particle size on the severity of the filtrate invasion by measuring and modeling the total filtrate volume expelled during the experiments.”)
by evaluating a probability of bridging (page 161 figure 4: “calculation of deposition probability in rock”) in a cascade (page 161 figure 4: “injecting the next pore volume”) using various sized LCM, (page 161 col 2 par 4: “As the size distribution of particles is known, the deposition probability can be estimated within the mud cake as well as the inside the rock.”)
the probability being based on particle size distribution of the various sized of LCM, (page 161 col 1 par 4: “As the size distribution of particles is known, the deposition probability can be estimated within the mud cake as well as the inside the rock.”) specific gravity (page 161 col 2 par 2: “That, Dp=L is the pressure drop per length of the porous medium, g is gravity acceleration related to the buoyant force, rs is the density of solid particles, rf is fluid or filtrate density and ε is the void fraction of the deposited cake of solid particles.” Examiner note: Where specific gravity is mathematically related to density.),
determining a permeability of filter cake formed due to the LCM (see FIG. 4, box labeled "K(t)", [page 161]; If the overall permeability of the both rock and mud cake is shown by K, for specific mud and rock sample it will be a function of time, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 20-22])by calculating a fraction of finer particulates filtered by the LCM bridge formed in the fracture, (page 160 col 1 par 2 “a probability function for deposition of a solid particle in a capillary tube,” Examiner note: Where deposition probability is the probability of particles being filtered, where this is related to size, see page 160 col 1: “The finest invading particles have a higher chance to pass through the whole system without being entrapped. Fig. 3 schematically describes the different considered mechanisms for four different ranges of particle size which may be present in the invading mud mixture. These categories have no strict range while the probability of particles being involved in each of the mechanisms depends on the likelihood of the mechanical filtration in each medium.”
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture; (in the two part model, only the particle sizes that stick either to the mud cake or rock lead to permeability reduction, “which causes porosity and permeability reduction of mud cake”, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 8-9], and “the remaining portion of the particles within the fluid enter the rock after passing the mud cake. Similarly, a part of these particles are deposited inside the porous space of the rock samples which leads to porosity and permeability reduction in the rock sample”, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 10-14]); Examiner note: See also figure 4, where “calculation of permeability reduction” occurs after “deposition probability”
and formulating a composition that includes the LCM (page 158 col 1 par 7: “Barite has the largest average size of the solid particles. Water-based drilling muds were made by blending gels, thickeners, thinners, and weighing or bridging agents. The distribution of particle size in the weighing or bridging agents was measured using the Malvern 2000 Mastersizer, which is a laser diffraction particle size distribution analyzer” (Examiner note: See table 2 and figure 2, particle size distribution , which includes Coarse Calcium Carbonate Distribution”)
PNG
media_image2.png
799
1082
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the permeability calculation, (Figure 4 “Calculation of permeability reduction in rock” for calculating K(t) “permeability over time.” Page 166 col 1 par 2: “For calcium carbonate mud samples, the volume of the filtrated fluid decreases when the size of the solid particles increases. It means that the coarse calcium carbonate mud is more favorable to control the mud invasion through the formation. This statement is proved experimentally and is corroborated by the modeling results for the tested water-based muds”) to control losses from the wellbore (The model developed in this work can be utilized in proactive mud design to mitigate formation damage problem, [page 165 col 2 paragraph 1 lines 7-8]; the fluid is the drilling fluid sometimes referred to as "mud", where the LCM is the "mud solid particles" in the drilling fluid, "characterized according to the size of the mud solid particles, mud additives, and concentrations", [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-6]; examples of LCM given at, [page 158 col 1 paragraph 2]; with specific characterizations of bridging agents provided in section 2.1.1. Mud samples included in table 1 and table 2, [page 158]; and the wellbore is defined by the rocks that were studied near the wellbore, [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 11-12]; the authors determined coarse calcium carbonate mud to be most favorable to control mud invasion through the formation, [page 166 col 1 paragraph 1 bullet 2 lines 2-4]).)
Rabbani_2017 does not expressly recite [the probability of bridging being based on] … shape factor … concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size;
determining whether the permeability of the filter cake is sufficiently low to control losses from the wellbore;
if the permeability is not sufficiently low to control losses changing the formulation of the LCM
[and formulating a composition that includes the LCM] using concentrations [of the various sized LCM determined from the probability of bridging]
; and pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore.
Xu_2021 however makes obvious the probability [of bridging] being based on … shape factor (page 236 col 1 par 3: “Relationships between shape and particle size and absolute bridging concentration of plugging material Shape is an important parameter to characterize the shape of material. Shape affects the friction coefficient of the material and the plugging efficiency of the fracture”) … concentration of the LCM (page 236 col 1 par 1: “there is a certain probability of bridging, and this material concentration is the critical bridging concentration. As the material concentration increases further, the bridging probability gradually increases. When the bridging probability reaches 100%, the corresponding bridging concentration is the absolute bridging concentration. When the material concentration is higher than the absolute bridging concentration, bridging is bound to occur in the fracture, that is, the bridging probability is 100%.”) , and fracture width or characteristic size; (page 235 col 1 par 1: “a given concentration of plugging material, the ratio of the material diameter to fracture width (R) directly determines the plugging efficiency. At the plugging material concentration of 5% (volume fraction) and friction coefficient of 0.8, at the R value of 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7, simulations showed particles constantly flew out of the crack outlet during the plugging process, and no effective plugging was formed inside the fracture. As R value increased to 0.8, after a period of time, no particles flew out of the fracture outlet, and a plugging zone was formed inside the fracture. The larger the R value, the shorter the plugging time and the higher the plugging efficiency was”)
[and formulating a composition that includes the LCM] using concentrations [of the various sized LCM determined from the probability of bridging] (page 234 col 2 par 5: “The volume concentration and particle size distribution of LCMs are important factors determining bridging and formula design.” … page 240 col 1 par 2: “On the basis of selecting the new type of LCMs, the bridging material concentration was further optimized according to the absolute bridging concentration to improve the fracture plugging efficiency.”
; and pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore. (in designing the plugging formula..., find R value that satisfies pumping requirements prior to pumping, [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-27]).
Rabbani and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called petroleum engineering. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rabbani and Xu. The rationale for doing so would have been teaching, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Both Rabbani and Xu calculate a probability of bridging. Rabbani does not expressly recite the usage of shape factors, concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size when calculating bridging probability or when formulating the composition. Xu, however, outlines the benefit of using these variables.
Xu states page 236 col 1 par 3: “Relationships between shape and particle size and absolute bridging concentration of plugging material Shape is an important parameter to characterize the shape of material. Shape affects the friction coefficient of the material and the plugging efficiency of the fracture”, page 235 col 1 par 1: “a given concentration of plugging material, the ratio of the material diameter to fracture width (R) directly determines the plugging efficiency. And page 234 col 2 par 5: “The volume concentration and particle size distribution of LCMs are important factors determining bridging and formula design.” Where Xu clearly states that these factors are important in consideration for bridging in order to optimize efficiency and determine bridging and formula design. One ordinary skilled in the art would integrate these factors when performing the simulation and modeling of Rabbani to ensure that the bridging and plugging efficiency of the fracture is maximized and to ensure important factors are considered.
Rabbani does not expressly recite pumping the composition in the wellbore. Rabbani state’s introduction par 1: “Formation of mud cake helps with diminishing the mud invasion and increases the wellbore stability.” And page 158 col 1 par 2: “Formation of mud cakes, while strengthening the wellbore to prevent unfavorable fractures, can cause operational problems such as stuck pipe, excessive torque, and high swab and surge pressures (Tran et al., 2010; Song and Rojas, 2006; Elkatatny et al., 2011). Lost circulation material (LCM), such as Mica flakes and sized Calcium Carbonate help to diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the invention of Rabbani and pump it into a wellbore after determining the LCM to help diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation, (which would necessitate the LCM to be pumped)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and usage of particle sizes to plug pores of Rabbani with the critical bridging of fractures based on concentrations, particle shape, fracture size as well as the pumping of the composition of Xu for the benefit of increasing bridging likelihood and plugging efficiency of a fracture to diminish invasion of mud filtrate into a formation.
Both Rabbani and Xu do not expressly recite
determining whether the permeability of the filter cake is sufficiently low to control losses from the wellbore;
if the permeability is not sufficiently low to control losses changing the formulation of the LCM
Kumar_2011 however makes obvious determining whether the permeability of the filter cake is sufficiently low to control losses from the wellbore; if the permeability is not sufficiently low to control losses changing the formulation of the LCM (“Page 5:“Particle size distribution of various combinations of particulate LCM and fluid loss results has been tabulated in Table 3. GM 1200 particles were able to plug the slot but didn‟t control the fluid loss. This was because the interstitial void in the plug was too large and continuous fluid loss occurred in spite of complete filling of the slot. This scenario is not desirable as permeable plug will not stop the pressure transmission from wellbore to the fracture and fracture tip will propagate continuously. Addition of RGC 400 (20 percent by volume) arrested the fluid loss.”)
Rabbani, Xu, and Kumar are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called petroleum engineering. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Rabbani, Xu, and Kumar.
The rational for doing so would have been to follow teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Rabbani shows figure 11 “Experimental and modeling results for filtration loss after 30 min for Barite mud,” where fluid loss is tracked by Rabbani. Rabbani also calculates permeability (figure 4). Kumar demonstrates that fluid loss can be controlled, where it is a function of permeability. Kumar demonstrates the relationship between fluid loss and permeability is important, as a permeable plug will not stop pressure transmissions. Kumar also demonstrates that this can be fixed simply by modifying the LCM or adding different particles. See Rabbani introduction par 1, where Rabbani understands the purpose of the mud cake formation to increase “wellbore stability” and “productivity and profitability” In order to maximize productivity and profitability in a well, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize in view of Rabbani and Kumar, that if the plug is determined to not be permeable enough to control fluid loss, that the LCM would need to be changed to control the looses and improve productivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the inventions of Rabbani, and Xu which calculate a permeability of a bridge and fluid loss with the modification of the LCM used by Kumar for the benefit of improving productivity when the permeability is insufficient to control losses to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1,
Rabbani makes obvious further comprising modifying the LCM. ((calcium carbonate is tested at 3 different particle sizes, so the LCM is modified between test, see Table 2, [page 158] and FIG. 13 for results, [page 166]).)
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1,
Rabbani makes obvious wherein determining the potential is based in part on large particles of the LCM. (Large particles with the size greater than the average pore size, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 4-5] calculated according to eq. (1), [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 9-10], where eq. (1) is on page [160]; see FIG. 3 for a visual of largest particles, [page 160]).
Claim 4:The method of claim 3,
Rabbani makes obvious wherein determining the potential is also based in part on medium particles of the LCM that exist in spaces between the large particles. (consists of the smaller particles enters the mud cake and again a portion of them deposits inside the mud cake which causes porosity and permeability reduction of mud cake. The probability of particle deposition is obtained using Equation (1), [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 6-10]; where eq. (1) is on page [160]; see FIG. 3 for a visual of medium particles, [page 160]).
Claim 5:
The method of claim 4,
Rabbani makes obvious wherein determining the potential is also based in part on small particles of the LCM that exist in spaces between the medium particles. (the remaining portion of the particles within the fluid enter the rock after passing the mud cake. Similarly, a part of these particles are deposited inside the porous space of the rock samples which leads to porosity and permeability reduction in the rock sample, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 10-14]; where eq. (1) is on page [160]; see FIG. 3 for a visual of fine particles, [page 160]).
Claim 6:
The method of claim 3,
Rabbani makes obvious further comprising determining the potential of initial sealing with the large particles. (Large particles with the size greater than the average pore size of the mud cake deposits at the surface, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 4-5] calculated according to eq. (1), [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 9-10], where eq. (1) is on page [160]; see FIG. 3 for a visual of largest particles, [page 160]; the deposited particles increase the thickness of the mud cake, which also affects the other calculations as the term L in eq’s. (3), (4), (8), and (9), [page 161]).
Claim 7:
The method of claim 4,
Rabbani makes obvious further comprising determining a potential of sealing with the large particles and the medium particles. (consists of the smaller particles enters the mud cake and again a portion of them deposits inside the mud cake which causes porosity and permeability reduction of mud cake. The probability of particle deposition is obtained using Equation (1), [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 6-10]; where eq. (1) is on page [160]; see FIG. 3 for a visual of medium particles, [page 160]; the large deposited particles increase the thickness of the mud cake, which also affects the medium particle calculations as the term L in eq’s. (3), (4), (8), and (9), [page 161])
Claim 8:
The method of claim 5,
Rabbani makes obvious further comprising determining a potential of tertiary sealing with the medium particles and the small particles. (next, the second portion consists of the smaller particles enters the mud cake and again a portion of them deposits inside the mud cake which causes porosity and permeability reduction of mud cake. The probability of particle deposition is obtained using Equation (1). Next, the remaining portion of the particles within the fluid enter the rock after passing the mud cake. Similarly, a part of these particles are deposited inside the porous space of the rock samples which leads to porosity and permeability reduction in the rock sample, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 6-14]).
Claims 11 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbani_2017 and , Xu_2021
Claim 11:Rabbani makes obvious A method comprising (see FIG. 4, [page 161]; mud cake can be "internal" meaning in the pores/fractures of the formation or "external" meaning growing into the borehole, shrinking the borehole diameter as shown in FIG. 3, [page 160]; Rabbani refers to the “external” as mud cake, and the “internal” as rock but both regions are interpreted as part of the mud/filter cake) characterizing a fracture extending from a wellbore(study the parameters minimizing the total volume of the filtrate flowing through porous rocks of the near wellbore area, [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 11-12; where the “study” is routine core analysis, [page 158 col 2 paragraph 2 line 8]; which characterizes the fracture/pore in terms of permeability, porosity, and average pore size as shown in Table 3, [page 159]; which extends from the wellbore as shown in FIG. 3, [page 160]; in FIG. 4, [page 161] this is part of the probability calculations using eq. (1) which requires pore radius, r_p, [page 160]); by determining a fracture width; (abstract “The novelty of the present study, is quantitative utilization of the SEM images by applying the watershed segmentation algorithm to detect and measure the size of the mud cake pore spaces. Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets the fracture width of the claim to read on the size of the pore”) characterizing a lost circulation material (LCM); (distribution of particle sizes as shown in Table 2, [page 158]; in FIG. 4, [page 161] this is part of the probability calculations using eq. (1) which requires particle radius, x, [page 160]); determining a probability that the LCM bridges the fracture, the fracture extending from a wellbore (see FIG. 4, box labeled "calculation of deposition probability in rock", [page 161]; see also FIG. 3 where "bridge" refers to "deposition inside the rock" reducing permeability of the porosity tubes, [page 160]); by evaluating a probability of bridging (page 161 figure 4: “calculation of deposition probability in rock”) in a cascade (page 161 figure 4: “injecting the next pore volume”) using various sized LCM, (page 161 col 2 par 4: “As the size distribution of particles is known, the deposition probability can be estimated within the mud cake as well as the inside the rock.”)
the probability being based on particle size distribution of the various sized of LCM, (page 161 col 1 par 4: “As the size distribution of particles is known, the deposition probability can be estimated within the mud cake as well as the inside the rock.”) specific gravity (page 161 col 2 par 2: “That, Dp=L is the pressure drop per length of the porous medium, g is gravity acceleration related to the buoyant force, rs is the density of solid particles, rf is fluid or filtrate density and ε is the void fraction of the deposited cake of solid particles.” Examiner note: Where specific gravity is mathematically related to density.),
determining a permeability of filter cake formed due to the LCM (see FIG. 4, box labeled "K(t)", [page 161]; If the overall permeability of the both rock and mud cake is shown by K, for specific mud and rock sample it will be a function of time, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 20-22])by calculating a fraction of finer particulates filtered by the LCM bridge formed in the fracture, (page 160 col 1 par 2 “a probability function for deposition of a solid particle in a capillary tube,” Examiner note: Where deposition probability is the probability of particles being filtered, where this is related to size, see page 160 col 1: “The finest invading particles have a higher chance to pass through the whole system without being entrapped. Fig. 3 schematically describes the different considered mechanisms for four different ranges of particle size which may be present in the invading mud mixture. These categories have no strict range while the probability of particles being involved in each of the mechanisms depends on the likelihood of the mechanical filtration in each medium.”
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture; (in the two part model, only the particle sizes that stick either to the mud cake or rock lead to permeability reduction, “which causes porosity and permeability reduction of mud cake”, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 8-9], and “the remaining portion of the particles within the fluid enter the rock after passing the mud cake. Similarly, a part of these particles are deposited inside the porous space of the rock samples which leads to porosity and permeability reduction in the rock sample”, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 10-14]); Examiner note: See also figure 4, where “calculation of permeability reduction” occurs after “deposition probability”
and formulating a fluid that includes the LCM (page 158 col 1 par 7: “Barite has the largest average size of the solid particles. Water-based drilling muds were made by blending gels, thickeners, thinners, and weighing or bridging agents. The distribution of particle size in the weighing or bridging agents was measured using the Malvern 2000 Mastersizer, which is a laser diffraction particle size distribution analyzer” (Examiner note: See table 2 and figure 2, particle size distribution , which includes Coarse Calcium Carbonate Distribution”)
PNG
media_image2.png
799
1082
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the permeability calculation, (Figure 4 “Calculation of permeability reduction in rock” for calculating K(t) “permeability over time.” Page 166 col 1 par 2: “For calcium carbonate mud samples, the volume of the filtrated fluid decreases when the size of the solid particles increases. It means that the coarse calcium carbonate mud is more favorable to control the mud invasion through the formation. This statement is proved experimentally and is corroborated by the modeling results for the tested water-based muds”) to control losses from the wellbore (The model developed in this work can be utilized in proactive mud design to mitigate formation damage problem, [page 165 col 2 paragraph 1 lines 7-8]; the fluid is the drilling fluid sometimes referred to as "mud", where the LCM is the "mud solid particles" in the drilling fluid, "characterized according to the size of the mud solid particles, mud additives, and concentrations", [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-6]; examples of LCM given at, [page 158 col 1 paragraph 2]; with specific characterizations of bridging agents provided in section 2.1.1. Mud samples included in table 1 and table 2, [page 158]; and the wellbore is defined by the rocks that were studied near the wellbore, [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 11-12]; the authors determined coarse calcium carbonate mud to be most favorable to control mud invasion through the formation, [page 166 col 1 paragraph 1 bullet 2 lines 2-4]).)
Rabbani_2017 does not expressly recite the probability [of bridging] being based on … shape factor … concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size;
[and formulating a fluid that includes the LCM] using concentrations [of the various sized LCM determined from the probability of bridging]
; and pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore.
Xu_2021 however makes obvious the probability [of bridging] being based on … shape factor (page 236 col 1 par 3: “Relationships between shape and particle size and absolute bridging concentration of plugging material Shape is an important parameter to characterize the shape of material. Shape affects the friction coefficient of the material and the plugging efficiency of the fracture”) … concentration of the LCM (page 236 col 1 par 1: “there is a certain probability of bridging, and this material concentration is the critical bridging concentration. As the material concentration increases further, the bridging probability gradually increases. When the bridging probability reaches 100%, the corresponding bridging concentration is the absolute bridging concentration. When the material concentration is higher than the absolute bridging concentration, bridging is bound to occur in the fracture, that is, the bridging probability is 100%.”) , and fracture width or characteristic size; (page 235 col 1 par 1: “a given concentration of plugging material, the ratio of the material diameter to fracture width (R) directly determines the plugging efficiency. At the plugging material concentration of 5% (volume fraction) and friction coefficient of 0.8, at the R value of 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7, simulations showed particles constantly flew out of the crack outlet during the plugging process, and no effective plugging was formed inside the fracture. As R value increased to 0.8, after a period of time, no particles flew out of the fracture outlet, and a plugging zone was formed inside the fracture. The larger the R value, the shorter the plugging time and the higher the plugging efficiency was”)
[and formulating a fluid that includes the LCM] using concentrations [of the various sized LCM determined from the probability of bridging] (page 234 col 2 par 5: “The volume concentration and particle size distribution of LCMs are important factors determining bridging and formula design.” … page 240 col 1 par 2: “On the basis of selecting the new type of LCMs, the bridging material concentration was further optimized according to the absolute bridging concentration to improve the fracture plugging efficiency.”
; and pumping the fluid that includes the LCM into the wellbore. (in designing the plugging formula..., find R value that satisfies pumping requirements prior to pumping, [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-27]).
Rabbani and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called petroleum engineering. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rabbani and Xu. The rationale for doing so would have been teaching, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Both Rabbani and Xu calculate a probability of bridging. Rabbani does not expressly recite the usage of shape factors, concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size when calculating bridging probability or when formulating the composition. Xu, however, outlines the benefit of using these variables.
Xu states page 236 col 1 par 3: “Relationships between shape and particle size and absolute bridging concentration of plugging material Shape is an important parameter to characterize the shape of material. Shape affects the friction coefficient of the material and the plugging efficiency of the fracture”, page 235 col 1 par 1: “a given concentration of plugging material, the ratio of the material diameter to fracture width (R) directly determines the plugging efficiency. And page 234 col 2 par 5: “The volume concentration and particle size distribution of LCMs are important factors determining bridging and formula design.” Where Xu clearly states that these factors are important in consideration for bridging in order to optimize efficiency and determine bridging and formula design. One ordinary skilled in the art would integrate these factors when performing the simulation and modeling of Rabbani to ensure that the bridging and plugging efficiency of the fracture is maximized and to ensure important factors are considered.
Rabbani does not expressly recite pumping the composition in the wellbore. Rabbani state’s introduction par 1: “Formation of mud cake helps with diminishing the mud invasion and increases the wellbore stability.” And page 158 col 1 par 2: “Formation of mud cakes, while strengthening the wellbore to prevent unfavorable fractures, can cause operational problems such as stuck pipe, excessive torque, and high swab and surge pressures (Tran et al., 2010; Song and Rojas, 2006; Elkatatny et al., 2011). Lost circulation material (LCM), such as Mica flakes and sized Calcium Carbonate help to diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the invention of Rabbani and pump it into a wellbore after determining the LCM to help diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation, (which would necessitate the LCM to be pumped)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and usage of particle sizes to plug pores of Rabbani with the critical bridging of fractures based on concentrations, particle shape, fracture size as well as the pumping of the composition of Xu for the benefit of increasing bridging likelihood and plugging efficiency of a fracture to diminish invasion of mud filtrate into a formation
Claim 12:
The method of claim 11 wherein determining the probability is based in part on large particles of the LCM.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 11 and claim 3, claim 12 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 12, wherein determining the probability is also based in part on medium particles of the LCM that exist in spaces between the large particles.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 12 and claim 4, claim 13is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim 14:
The method of claim 13, wherein determining the probability is also based in part on small particles of the LCM that exist in spaces between the medium particles.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 13 and claim 5, claim 14 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim 15:Rabbani makes obvious A method comprising (see FIG. 4, [page 161]; mud cake can be "internal" meaning in the pores/fractures of the formation or "external" meaning growing into the borehole, shrinking the borehole diameter as shown in FIG. 3, [page 160]; Rabbani refers to the “external” as mud cake, and the “internal” as rock but both regions are interpreted as part of the mud/filter cake): determining if a lost circulation material (LCM) has the potential to bridge a fracture extending from a wellbore (see FIG. 4, box labeled "calculation of deposition probability in rock", [page 161]; see also FIG. 3 where "bridge" refers to "deposition inside the rock" reducing permeability of the porosity tubes, [page 160]); by evaluating a probability of bridging (page 161 figure 4: “calculation of deposition probability in rock”) in a cascade (page 161 figure 4: “injecting the next pore volume”) using various sized LCM, (page 161 col 2 par 4: “As the size distribution of particles is known, the deposition probability can be estimated within the mud cake as well as the inside the rock.”)
the probability being based on particle size distribution of the various sized of LCM, (page 161 col 1 par 4: “As the size distribution of particles is known, the deposition probability can be estimated within the mud cake as well as the inside the rock.”) specific gravity (page 161 col 2 par 2: “That, Dp=L is the pressure drop per length of the porous medium, g is gravity acceleration related to the buoyant force, rs is the density of solid particles, rf is fluid or filtrate density and ε is the void fraction of the deposited cake of solid particles.” Examiner note: Where specific gravity is mathematically related to density.),
(see FIG. 4, box labeled "K(t)", [page 161]; If the overall permeability of the both rock and mud cake is shown by K, for specific mud and rock sample it will be a function of time, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 20-22]), calculating a fraction of finer particulates filtered by the filter cake, (page 160 col 1 par 2 “a probability function for deposition of a solid particle in a capillary tube,” Examiner note: Where deposition probability is the probability of particles being filtered, where this is related to size, see page 160 col 1: “The finest invading particles have a higher chance to pass through the whole system without being entrapped. Fig. 3 schematically describes the different considered mechanisms for four different ranges of particle size which may be present in the invading mud mixture. These categories have no strict range while the probability of particles being involved in each of the mechanisms depends on the likelihood of the mechanical filtration in each medium.”
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture; (in the two part model, only the particle sizes that stick either to the mud cake or rock lead to permeability reduction, “which causes porosity and permeability reduction of mud cake”, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 8-9], and “the remaining portion of the particles within the fluid enter the rock after passing the mud cake. Similarly, a part of these particles are deposited inside the porous space of the rock samples which leads to porosity and permeability reduction in the rock sample”, [page 161 col 2 paragraph 2 lines 10-14]); Examiner note: See also figure 4, where “calculation of permeability reduction” occurs after “deposition probability” and formulating a composition that includes the LCM (page 158 col 1 par 7: “Barite has the largest average size of the solid particles. Water-based drilling muds were made by blending gels, thickeners, thinners, and weighing or bridging agents. The distribution of particle size in the weighing or bridging agents was measured using the Malvern 2000 Mastersizer, which is a laser diffraction particle size distribution analyzer” (Examiner note: See table 2 and figure 2, particle size distribution , which includes Coarse Calcium Carbonate Distribution”)
PNG
media_image2.png
799
1082
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the permeability calculation, (Figure 4 “Calculation of permeability reduction in rock” for calculating K(t) “permeability over time.” Page 166 col 1 par 2: “For calcium carbonate mud samples, the volume of the filtrated fluid decreases when the size of the solid particles increases. It means that the coarse calcium carbonate mud is more favorable to control the mud invasion through the formation. This statement is proved experimentally and is corroborated by the modeling results for the tested water-based muds”) to control losses from the wellbore (The model developed in this work can be utilized in proactive mud design to mitigate formation damage problem, [page 165 col 2 paragraph 1 lines 7-8]; the fluid is the drilling fluid sometimes referred to as "mud", where the LCM is the "mud solid particles" in the drilling fluid, "characterized according to the size of the mud solid particles, mud additives, and concentrations", [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-6]; examples of LCM given at, [page 158 col 1 paragraph 2]; with specific characterizations of bridging agents provided in section 2.1.1. Mud samples included in table 1 and table 2, [page 158]; and the wellbore is defined by the rocks that were studied near the wellbore, [page 157 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 11-12]; the authors determined coarse calcium carbonate mud to be most favorable to control mud invasion through the formation, [page 166 col 1 paragraph 1 bullet 2 lines 2-4]).)
Rabbani_2017 does not expressly recite modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential
the probability [of bridging] being based on … shape factor … concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size;
[and formulating a composition that includes the LCM] using concentrations [of the various sized LCM determined from the probability of bridging]
; and pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore.
Xu however makes obvious modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential (The experimental results show that when the amount of bridging material in the formula is too low, plugging zone cannot be formed efficiently, and the slurry would lose continuously; when the material concentration is 0.055 g/mL, that is, higher than C_am, the cumulative loss significantly reduces and the fracture plugging efficiency enhances considerably, [page 240 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 10-16]).
Xu_2021 however makes obvious the probability [of bridging] being based on … shape factor (page 236 col 1 par 3: “Relationships between shape and particle size and absolute bridging concentration of plugging material Shape is an important parameter to characterize the shape of material. Shape affects the friction coefficient of the material and the plugging efficiency of the fracture”) … concentration of the LCM (page 236 col 1 par 1: “there is a certain probability of bridging, and this material concentration is the critical bridging concentration. As the material concentration increases further, the bridging probability gradually increases. When the bridging probability reaches 100%, the corresponding bridging concentration is the absolute bridging concentration. When the material concentration is higher than the absolute bridging concentration, bridging is bound to occur in the fracture, that is, the bridging probability is 100%.”) , and fracture width or characteristic size; (page 235 col 1 par 1: “a given concentration of plugging material, the ratio of the material diameter to fracture width (R) directly determines the plugging efficiency. At the plugging material concentration of 5% (volume fraction) and friction coefficient of 0.8, at the R value of 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7, simulations showed particles constantly flew out of the crack outlet during the plugging process, and no effective plugging was formed inside the fracture. As R value increased to 0.8, after a period of time, no particles flew out of the fracture outlet, and a plugging zone was formed inside the fracture. The larger the R value, the shorter the plugging time and the higher the plugging efficiency was”)
[and formulating a composition that includes the LCM] using concentrations [of the various sized LCM determined from the probability of bridging] (page 234 col 2 par 5: “The volume concentration and particle size distribution of LCMs are important factors determining bridging and formula design.” … page 240 col 1 par 2: “On the basis of selecting the new type of LCMs, the bridging material concentration was further optimized according to the absolute bridging concentration to improve the fracture plugging efficiency.”
; and pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore. (in designing the plugging formula..., find R value that satisfies pumping requirements prior to pumping, [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-27]).
Rabbani and Xu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called petroleum engineering. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rabbani and Xu. The rationale for doing so would have been teaching, suggestions, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Both Rabbani and Xu calculate a probability of bridging. Rabbani does not expressly recite the usage of shape factors, concentration of the LCM, and fracture width or characteristic size when calculating bridging probability or when formulating the composition. Xu, however, outlines the benefit of using these variables.
Xu states page 236 col 1 par 3: “Relationships between shape and particle size and absolute bridging concentration of plugging material Shape is an important parameter to characterize the shape of material. Shape affects the friction coefficient of the material and the plugging efficiency of the fracture”, page 235 col 1 par 1: “a given concentration of plugging material, the ratio of the material diameter to fracture width (R) directly determines the plugging efficiency. And page 234 col 2 par 5: “The volume concentration and particle size distribution of LCMs are important factors determining bridging and formula design.” Where Xu clearly states that these factors are important in consideration for bridging in order to optimize efficiency and determine bridging and formula design. One ordinary skilled in the art would integrate these factors when performing the simulation and modeling of Rabbani to ensure that the bridging and plugging efficiency of the fracture is maximized and to ensure important factors are considered.
Rabbani does not expressly recite pumping the composition in the wellbore. Rabbani state’s introduction par 1: “Formation of mud cake helps with diminishing the mud invasion and increases the wellbore stability.” And page 158 col 1 par 2: “Formation of mud cakes, while strengthening the wellbore to prevent unfavorable fractures, can cause operational problems such as stuck pipe, excessive torque, and high swab and surge pressures (Tran et al., 2010; Song and Rojas, 2006; Elkatatny et al., 2011). Lost circulation material (LCM), such as Mica flakes and sized Calcium Carbonate help to diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the invention of Rabbani and pump it into a wellbore after determining the LCM to help diminish the invasion of the mud filtrate into the formation, (which would necessitate the LCM to be pumped). Furthermore, as understood by one ordinarily skilled in the art, determining a probability, such as done by Rabbani, is done to optimize a selection of the LCM to create a bridge, where if the probability is too low, one would be motivated to modify the LCM to increase the probability that birding occurs to enhance fracture plugging efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and usage of particle sizes to plug pores of Rabbani with the critical bridging of fractures based on concentrations, particle shape, fracture size as well as the pumping of the composition of Xu for the benefit of increasing bridging likelihood and plugging efficiency of a fracture to diminish invasion of mud filtrate into a formation.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, wherein determining the potential is based in part on large particles of the LCM.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 3, claim 16 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim 17:
The method of claim 16, wherein determining the potential is also based in part on medium particles of the LCM that exist in spaces between the large particles.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 16 and claim 4, claim 17 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim 18:The method of claim 17, wherein determining the potential is also based in part on small particles of the LCM that exist in spaces between the medium particles.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 17 and claim 5, claim 18 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim 19:
The method of claim 15, wherein determining the potential is based on size, shape, specific gravity, and concentration of the LCM, and characteristics of the fracture.
Claim 15 appears to have inherited the claim limitations of claim 19. Incorporating the rejection of claim 15, claim 19 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu_2020 “Effects of permeable plugs on wellbore strengthening” section 4: “The advantage of the present model is that it considers the plugging zone permeability and the transient pressure responses during WBS treatment. Thus it is especially important for numerical simulation to determine the potential values of the plugging zone permeability. For this purpose, the experiments have been done so as to provide the ranges for model parameters and to understand the failure mechanisms of the plugging zone”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights