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 02/09/2026
Claims 10 and 20 cancelled
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are amended
Claims 2-9, 12-14, and 16-19 are original
Claims 1-9, and 11-19 pending in the application
Claims 1-9, and 11-19 are rejected
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Response to Arguments
Response to 101
Applicant argues limitation “pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore." In amended claim 1 directs the claim to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner notes that amended claim 1 now matches the now canceled claim 10. Claim 10 in the previous office action was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the examiner finds the applicant argument to be persuasive, and therefore independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-9 overcome the previous 101 rejection.
Applicant argues limitation "pumping the fluid into the wellbore." In claim 11 directs the claim to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As this limitation has been amended to include an application of the judicial exception, the examiner finds the applicant argument to be persuasive, and therefore independent claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12-14 overcome the previous 101 rejection.
Applicant argues limitation "pumping the fluid into the wellbore." In claim 15 directs the claim to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner notes that amended claim 15 now matches the now canceled claim 20. Claim 20 in the previous office action was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the examiner finds the applicant argument to be persuasive, and therefore independent claim 15, as well as dependent claims 16-19 overcome the previous 101 rejection.
Response to 102 and 103
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Rabbani.
Applicant argues the issue that Rabbani does not disclose "determining if a lost circulation material (LCM) has the potential to bridge a fracture, the fracture extending from a wellbore." Applicant argues that Rabbani concepts of "deposition inside the rock" and overall permeability reduction are not equivalent to the claimed step of "determining if a lost circulation material (LCM) has the potential to bridge a fracture, the fracture extending from a wellbore." Examiner finds these arguments non-persuasive. Applicant’s arguments and Examiners rebuttal to these points are listed below.
Applicant argues that the term “fracture” used in the claim and specifications is distinct from the term “pore” or “pore throat size” used in the prior art of Rabbani. Examiner finds these arguments non-persuasive. Applicant’s arguments and Examiners rebuttal to these points are listed below.
Issue: Applicant argues that under BRI, the term “fracture” as used in the claims and described in the specifications is distinct from “pore” or pore throat size used in Rabbani. Rule: The MPEP 2111 states that “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" standard.” The MPEP 2111 states “The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings,” furthermore, the MPEP 2111.01(I) states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art.” Analysis: The specification does not provide a standard that differentiates the terms fracture and pore. As stated in the prior office action, the terms “fracture” and “pore” are used interchangeably in the specification, which indicates that an interpretation under BRI in which fractures and pores are interchangeable does not conflict with the specification or drawings. For example, par 42: “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate different sized LCM disposed in a fracture or pore to form a bridge therein, in accordance with examples of the present disclosure. As shown on FIG. 5A, Doi is the width of a fracture or pore500.” Where the figures illustrate one label that corresponds to either a fracture or pore which implies them to be functionally equivalent in the invention. Therefore, when determining the using “the broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the specification, one ordinarily skilled in the art when reading the claims and specifications would be led to believe that the terms pore and fracture can be used interchangeably in the context of the specification, drawings, and claims. Therefore, in order to ascertain the scope of the claim, it is important to then discuss the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word fracture in terms of plain meaning. One example can be given in Xu, where Xu abstract states “fracture plugging zone.” And figure 10 reveals what appear to be the small holes which represent fractures being plugged.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion: The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. Because the specification does not define the difference between a fracture and a pore, does not limit the claimed invention to a fracture, and utilizes the terms interchangeably in context of the claimed invention, one ordinarily skilled in the art may be led to assume that the claimed invention was intended to cover pores, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of a fracture seems to includes pores which get plugged as demonstrated by the prior art. Examiner notes that should the applicant intend that the scope of the invention only relate to what they define as fractures, that this should be made explicit through the claim language to exclude what the prior art considers as a pore. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches plugging in fractures specifically.
Issue: Applicant argues that the specifications of the application distinguish between the term’s “pore”/pore throat size and fracture, due to the usage of both terms in the specifications. Applicant states “The specification describes the operation as addressing a "fracture," a typically large, linear discontinuity that requires bridging as a first step. The application explicitly links the large particles (LCM) to the fracture size, contrasting it with the smaller sizes addressed by other particles: "As LCM generally includes large particles (relative to the size of the fracture opening), the permeability of the resulting filter cake is generally high and is not sufficient to control the lost circulation." (Specification, Para. [0021 ]). The Specification further distinguishes between the terms "fracture" and "pore throats. The Specification recites "The methods enable the engineer to determine the amount of the clean spacer or fluid that will be lost into the fractures and pore throats while the LCM particles (and fines) are being stacked in order to minimize or eliminate the losses after sufficient delivery into the fractures." (Specification, Para. [0028]). The use of two terms indicates that the terms are not equivalent. Rule: The MPEP 2111.01(I) states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art.” Analysis: Regarding specifications paragraph 21, the examiner disagrees that the application explicitly links the large LCM particles to fractures as opposed to pores. See paragraph 42 of the specifications “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate different sized LCM disposed in a fracture or pore to form a bridge therein, in accordance with examples of the present disclosure. As shown on FIG. 5A, Doi is the width of a fracture or pore500. Large particles include DL particles disposed in the fracture or pore” Where this passage states that LCM disposed on a pore forms a bridge, and that large particles are used in this process. The specification does not explicitly link only fractures to large LCM particles of forming a bridge. Secondly, regarding paragraph 28, it is not clear to the examiner that the usage of two different terms inherently implies their difference. It can also be common to list two terms together to imply their similarity. When the specification par 28 states “fractures and pore throats,” this could imply to an individual normally skilled in the art that the fracture is a pore which contains pore throats. This is because the recitation of “pore throats” implies the presence of pores which is not recited in the quoted paragraph. While that may not be the intention of the applicant, claims are given their meaning under broadest reasonable interpretation. Based on the specifications, one reading the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation could be led to believe that these terms overlap. Conclusion: Examiner finds this argument to be non-persuasive. The specifications do not explicitly state that these terms are different, and instead seems to corroborate the similarity of the terms, and potentially implies that they are the same. Examiner notes that should the applicant intend that the scope of the invention only relate to what they define as fractures, that this should be made explicit through the claim language to exclude what the prior art considers as a pore. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches plugging in fractures specifically.
Issue: Applicant further argues that the bridging process detailed in the applicant specification provides further evidence that the term “pore” is distinct from “fracture” The bridging process detailed in the application uses large particles to form an initial seal across a large opening, illustrated as: "First, as shown on FIG. 2A, formation of an LCM bridge 200 occurs in a fracture 202." (Specification, Para. [0034]). The Specification further recites the parameters which are considered when plugging fractures "methods take into account the following: lost circulation mechanism and the fracture characteristics (fracture width, height, orientation, and permeability of the formation); fluid rheology and density; propensity for the LCM particles with a given PSD and shape to bridge a fracture of given characteristics; and propensity of the LCM material to filter finer particles to result in a filter cake" (Specification, Para. [0023]), indicating a recognition that the physics of plugging a fracture width (which can be millimeters, as suggested by Xu's model setup "The inlet and outlet width of the fracture were set at 3 mm and 1 mm respectively" (Xu, Section 1.1) is different from filling the small pore size of the formation matrix. Rule: The MPEP 2111.01(I) states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art.” The MPEP 2145 also states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Analysis: While the specification does in fact describe a bridging process that occurs in fractures as outlined by the applicant in par 34, the examiner notes that the specification also outlines this same process occurring in pores as outlined by the specification. See par 42: “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrate different sized LCM disposed in a fracture or pore to form a bridge therein.” Therefore, the specification does not inherently disclose that the bridging process separates fractures from pores, but instead implies the opposite that this bridging process occurs for both fractures and pores. In regards to the specification listing parameters of fractures, the listing of parameters for fractures is not compared to or contrasted to pores in the specification. For instance, the terms “width” and “height” apply to pores as well as fractures. The examiner does not believe that paragraph 23 indicates a recognition that the size of a fracture is larger than a pore, but instead lists properties that apply to both fractures and pores. It is also important to note that the limitations from the specifications are not read into the claims. While these elements read on pores, the examiner notes that even if they did not, it would only affect the mapping when added directly to the claim. Furthermore, the implication of Xu in regards to fracture size is not read into the claims when discussing the prior art of Rabbani. Conclusion: the examiner finds the applicant arguments non-persuasive. The specifications do not state that bridging is a unique phenomenon to only fractures, similarly, the specification does not imply that fractures are a predetermined minimum size as opposed to pores. Examiner notes that should the applicant intend that the scope of the invention only relate to what they define as fractures, that this should be made explicit through the claim language to exclude what the prior art considers as a pore. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches plugging in fractures specifically.
Applicant argues that Rabbani focuses on “porous media” and “pores” as opposed to fractures. Applicants’ individual arguments towards this point are address below.
Issue : Applicant argues Rabbani explicitly models phenomena within the fine-scale geometry of the reservoir matrix, repeatedly using the terms "porous media" and "pore" to describe the flow paths. The model is for mud cake deposition over and through "porous sandstones." (Rabbani, Abstract). The overall goal is modeling the "filtrate invasion", (Rabbani, Pg. 158) which typically occurs in the small, inherent pathways of the rock. Rule: the MPEP 2111 states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” MPEP 2145 (VI) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. “ Analysis: The argument that Rabbani’s invention typically occurs in small inherent pathways of rock does not discontinue it from reading onto the claimed invention. The claims do not import limitation on the size of the fractures. Therefore, the fact that Rabbani models a process typically occurring in small pathways does not prevent the reference from being applied to the claim. Furthermore, the standard used for examination for claims is “broadest possible.” Something being “atypical” for its use in the prior art in relation to the claims does not discount it from its broadest possible interpretation. Therefore, while the applicant argues the prior art use on the claims would constitute an atypical reading, the examiner believes on broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim the process of the prior art mapped to the claim reads on the claimed language. Conclusion: The examiner finds the applicant argument non-persuasive due to the argument describing limitations in the prior art which are not claimed. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches plugging in fractures specifically.
Issue: Applicant argues The experiments are conducted on various sandstones with measured average pore size ranging from 61.6 micrometers to 208 micrometers (Rabbani, Pg. 159). These sizes are characteristic of pore throats and are orders of magnitude smaller than the fractures considered in the Applicant's field design (e.g., Xu models a fracture with an outlet width of 3 mm and 1 mm, which is approximately five times to fourteen times larger than Rabbani's largest average pore size. Rule: the MPEP 2111 states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” MPEP 2145 (VI) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. “ Analysis: Again as stated, these differences in the prior art need to be claimed in order to differentiate them from the claimed invention. It is not enough to say that the pore size of Rabbani is smaller than the applicants field design, when the applicants field design is not claimed. Conclusion: Examiner finds applicants arguments non-persuasive as they are arguing limitations not claimed. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches plugging in fractures specifically.
Issue: Applicant argues Rabbani models permeability reduction using the geometry of a "capillary tube." (Rabbani,Pg. 160). The Examiner's citation to Rabbani's "deposition inside the rock" refers to the third deposition mechanism in Rabbani Fig. 3: "Fine (Deposition inside the rock)" where fine solid particles deposit inside the rock porous parts. Rule: the MPEP 2111 states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” MPEP 2145 (VI) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. “ Analysis: the examiner does not note a contradiction in the mapping of the prior art against the claimed invention. The invention does not claim either a specific mechanism that is not using a “capillary tube” or explicitly excludes a capillary tube. What matters in the context of claim interpretation is what is recited directly in the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation. As understood by one ordinarily skilled in the art, determining if an LCM has the potential to bridge a fracture means a determination if a “bridge” or seal can be placed on a crack in the rock. A deposition inside the rock was determined to read on the claim. Conclusion: Examiner finds applicants arguments non-persuasive as they are arguing limitations not claimed. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches bridging a fracture.
Issue: Applicant Reiterates how the presence of bridging in the specifications distinguishes the invention from the prior art of Rabbani. Applicant states By defining the LCM action as preventing flow through a fracture that requires bridging, the Applicant clearly distinguishes the claimed invention from Rabbani's modeling of mud cake development and filtration through pores in sandstone samples. Rabbani does not teach the initial sealing of a large-scale fracture by LCM, but rather the continuous process of fine-scale filtration that results in a mud cake of continually changing permeability. Therefore, Rabbani fails to teach the specific claimed step of "determining if a lost circulation material (LCM) has the potential to bridge a fracture, the fracture extending from a wellbore." Rule: the MPEP 2111 states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” MPEP 2145 (VI) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. “ Analysis: The examiner does not locate an explicit definition in the claim that states that the “LCM action as preventing flow through a fracture that requires bridging,” While someone may infer that based on the claim, it is not an explicit requirement in the claim that the LCM requires the action of bridging to prevent flow to a fracture. Neither of these statements introduced in the applicant arguments are actually claimed. The applicant argument that “Rabbani does not teach the initial sealing of a large-scale fracture by LCM” is irrelevant since this limitation is not claimed. The claim instead is directed to determining a potential/ making a prediction if LCM has potential to bridge a fracture. Rabbani teaches “(see FIG. 4, box labeled "calculation of deposition probability in rock"). This is a teaching that shows a prediction and calculation being made, which is what is actually claimed. Conclusion: Examiner finds applicants arguments non-persuasive as they are arguing limitations not claimed. Examiner requests the applicant also keep in mind that the scope of the claim has been changed due the amendment, which means that claim 1 has been amended to be a 103 which includes Xu, where Xu explicitly teaches bridging a fracture.
Issue: Applicant argues that Rabbani does disclose “wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture" Examiner believes this to be a typo as it is contradicted by the argument below. Applicant likely meant to argue that Rabbani does not disclose “wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture" Applicant states that Because Rabbani does not teach the precondition of "bridging a fracture," its method for determining permeability is not conditioned on successful bridging. Therefore, Rabbani also fails to meet the conditional clause: "wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture. Rule: the MPEP 2111 states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” MPEP 2145 (VI) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. “ Analysis: Applicant first states that Rabbani does not teach the precondition of “bridging a fracture.” Again, the examiner notes that “bridging a fracture” is not a recited claim step. As already stated above, the examiner found the argument that the prior art does not discuss determining if the LCM has the potential to bridge a fracture to be non-persuasive. Because Rabbani teaches “wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture.” Rabbani also teaches “wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the fracture" Conclusion: Applicant finds the argument non-persuasive. As already stated examiner disagreed with applicant that Rabbani fails to meet the conditional clauses, therefore this argument is rendered moot due to previous argument responses.
Issue: Applicant argues that the combination of Rabbani with Xu is not obvious. Applicant argues the combination of Rabbani and Xu is inappropriate because the Examiner fails to provide an adequate teaching, suggestion, or motivation supported by the references for the combination. The Examiner attempts to supply the TSM by stating that: "A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing bridging likelihood without breaking pump specifications in the system of Rabbani by using Rabbani to determine particle size distribution, but modifying Rabbani with the critical bridging concentration experiments in Xu."(Office Action, Pg. 2). The Examiner's motivation is to ensure "bridging likelihood without breaking pump specifications," yet Rabbani itself teaches a method for determining optimum mud composition based on minimizing expelled fluid volume and mitigating formation damage. Rabbani recites "Accordingly, it is plausible to study the parameters minimizing the total volume of the filtrate flowing through porous rocks of the near well bore area ... Moreover, the invasion of mud filtrate can cause production problems by damaging the formation with solid particles deposited on the pore walls and within the throats." (Rabbani Pg. 159). Rabbani's motivation is to find the most effective mud solids for minimizing filtrate volume. The Examiner's interpretation requires taking the output of a dynamic deposition model (Rabbani) which minimizes filtrate loss by modeling flow through fixed porous media and combining it with a determination of absolute bridging concentration (Xu) to facilitate pumping requirements. These are two distinct and conflicting approaches: Rabbani is focused on filter cake permeability/filtration loss; Xu is focused on fracture plugging zone structure/strength and handling large materials. There is no teaching or suggestion in Rabbani to abandon its existing model framework and incorporate a separate analysis of large particle pumping limitations from Xu. Rabbani merely mentions that large particles "Theoretically, it is expected that the larger particles create the initial layers of the mud cake and then smaller particles are deposited over the formed cake" (Rab bani, Pg. 157), but the model incorporates deposition probability to account for this. Xu states that "too large bridging particles often make the plugging slurry difficult to be pumped or downhole tools unable to be used." (Xu, Pg. 237). While this may address a common field problem, Xu's solution is to optimize the plugging material size to satisfy pumping first, and then optimize concentration/friction: "In this case, the R value that satisfies the pumping requirements of the slurry and the normal use of the downhole tool is determined first. Then, according to the R value, the absolute bridging concentration is determined, and the concentration or the friction coefficient of the plugging material is increased to realize high efficient plugging." (Xu, Pg. 237). This teaching would motivate a skilled artisan to use Xu's method in place of Rabbani's fluid design, not to combine the core modeling steps. Therefore, the Examiner's rejection is based on an ipse dixit without a clear teaching or suggestion from the prior art to combine the references for the purpose asserted. Rule: Regarding the combination of references, the 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.").” The MPEP 2141.02 states “In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. “ The MPEP 2144.01 also states “"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." Analysis: The combination of Xu was introduced for specific limitations in the claim mapping. These limitations where “pumping the LCM into the wellbore” of claim 10/20 and “modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential” of claim 15. Regarding the issue that “these are two conflicting approaches” the examiner remarks that there does need to be an actual substitution of elements for obviousness rejection, what is required to determine obviousness is if the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings as a whole. The claim limitation of pumping the LCM into the wellbore does not require a specific method of analysis or modeling step, and can be reasonably performed and inferred by one reasonably skilled in the art. The more relevant claim to the applicant’s issue is the claim of “modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential.” Applicants’ arguments that Rabbani’s fluid design method would need to abandon its existing framework is unfounded. Under 103, the claim mapping needs to simply show that as a whole it would be obvious to modify the LCM. Examiner notes that the claim does not introduce specific modeling workflow parameters that need to be combined, and instead only asserts that the LCM is modified if it does not have the potential. It is irrelevant that the workflows of Rabbani and Xu are different, as long as they do not explicitly teach way from each other. Applicant has not demonstrated specific teachings from either reference that clearly teach away from each other, applicant has only proposed what they find to be issues when combining these two approaches. Furthermore, examiner disagrees that the combination of references contains two conflicting processes, especially when viewed as a whole. What the prior art of Xu teaches when viewed as a whole is a clear relationship between particle size, concentration and the probability of bridging. Please see Xu figures 8 and 10.
PNG
media_image2.png
507
1280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both figures 8 and 10 in Xu depict the relationship that, when concentration increases, the likelihood of bridging increases as well. And that the minimum concentration needed to bridge is dependent on the size of the particle relative to the fracture width. Rabbani similarly teaches the plugging of pores with different particle sizes relative to the width for deposition. See for example figure 3 in Rabbani.
PNG
media_image3.png
608
1168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as is proper with 103 analysis, one does not need to demonstrate that the entire workflow of Rabbani is entirely congruent with the workflow of Xu, rather, what is needed is to demonstrate what one ordinarily skilled in the art would glean/infer from the sources as a whole. As outlined, one ordinarily skilled in the art would glean that increasing concentrations would improve the percentage of deposition in Xu, and that this could similarly be applied to the invention of Rabbani. When the motivating statement says, “modifying Rabbani with the critical bridging concentration experiments in Xu.” It does not mean that the literal exact steps of Xu all have to occur to render the claim obvious, but rather as a whole it would be obvious to include “critical bridging concentration experiments” as taught by Xu in the workflow of Rabbani to get a predictable result of modifying an LCM if it does not have potential. As outlined in the previous rejection, “Xu teaches that the plugging slurry can be difficult to pump if the bridging particles are too large, (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-21] “ This provides enough motivation for one ordinarily skilled to recognize that if the deposition probability of Rabbani is too low, then a solution would have to be introduced that involves another method of increasing probability without breaking the pump specifications of Rabbani. This solution as made obvious by Xu would be to increase particle concentration (ie: modifying the LCM if it does not have the potential) Conclusion: Examiner finds applicant arguments non-persuasive, as applicant arguments pertain to arguments that the references cannot be combined due to conflicting workflows, when the standard for obviousness only requires that the steps as a whole be obvious over each other.
Issue: Applicant argues that the pumping limitation is not taught by Xu. Applicant believes that the Examiners assertion that Xu teaches "pumping the LCM into the wellbore" by citing: "in designing the plugging formula .. , find R value that satisfies pumping requirements prior to pumping." (Office Action, Pg. 22) to not be proper. This quoted text is related to designing the material size to ensure the slurry can be pumped; it is not an express teaching of the claimed final method step of "pumping the LCM into the well bore." Xu is a study on the "Structural formation and evolution mechanisms of fracture plugging zone" (Xu, Title) through CFD-DEM simulation and photo-elastic experiments . While it discusses pumping as a design constraint, it does not explicitly teach the actual step of "pumping the LCM into the well bore" as part of the simulation and optimization method. Rule: 35 U.S.C 103 states “A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.” The MPEP 2144.01 also states “"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." Analysis: The prior art of Xu was used as a 103 reference in combination, the standard for a 103 rejection is not a “express teaching” but rather, what as a whole would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date. This can also be based off of inferences one would reasonably be expected to draw. This claim limitation was mapped to “in designing the plugging formula..., find R value that satisfies pumping requirements prior to pumping, [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-27]).” One reasonably skilled in the art would understand that this process is being simulated so that it could actually be performed in the physical world. As in, one would glean from this reference that the plugging formula is pumped into the wellbore. Conclusion: Examiner finds the argument by the applicant to be non-persuasive as it does not match onto the standards of patentability under 35 U.S.C 103.
Issue: Applicant also Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rabbani and Xu. Applicant states that neither Rabbani nor Xu anticipate, or alternatively, teach or suggest the limitations of "determining a permeability of filter cake formed due to the LCM in
the fracture, wherein the permeability is determined if the LCM has the potential to bridge the
fracture; formulating a composition that includes the LCM, to control losses from the wellbore;
and pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the wellbore." Rule: Regarding the combination of references, the 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.").” Furthermore the MPEP 2145(VI) states that “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Lastly the MPEP 2141.02 states “In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. “ Analysis: there are no arguments towards why the prior art does not suggest the limitations above. The examiner will instead elaborate on the above claim mapping in italics, and also direct the applicants to arguments made under 102. "determining a permeability of filter cake formed due to the LCM in the fracture, ((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]), Figure 4 depicts a workflow, which contains a step k(t). As shown by the above quote, this K(t) represents the overall permeability of both rock and mud cake. Therefore, this passage reads on the claim statements as it explicitly determines a permeability of a filter cake, where this determination is a function of time that occurs after injecting “pore volumes” which is interpreted as the LCM in this context. 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]); Where as outlined above, the step of determining k(t) [the permeability] occurs after the calculating deposition probability, where it occurs when the permeability is determined and also after bridging. formulating a composition that includes the LCM, 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]). Where the coarse calcium carbonate mud is a composition that is formulated to control losses from the wellbore. 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]).) Where as already stated in previous arguments, “prior to pumping” implies to one of ordinarily skilled in the art of a pumping step. Conclusion: Examiner finds applicants arguments to be non-persuasive. Please see response to arguments under 102 for more detailed responses to arguments made.
End Response to Arguments
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 1-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Dynamic modeling of the formation damage and mud cake deposition using filtration theories coupled with SEM image processing" (Rabbani) in view of “Structural formation and evolution mechanisms of fracture plugging zone” (Xu)
Claim 1: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, 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]);
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])
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]);
and formulating a composition that includes the LCM, 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 does not expressly recite pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the well bore.
Xu, however, makes obvious pumping the composition that includes the LCM into the well bore. (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 a teaching, suggestion, 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.
Rabbani discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for pumping the LCM into the wellbore. Xu teaches that the plugging slurry can be difficult to pump if the bridging particles are too large, (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-21]), so the R value and absolute bridging concentration are determined first (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 21-27]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing bridging likelihood without breaking pump specifications in the system of Rabbani by using Rabbani to determine particle size distribution, but modifying Rabbani with the critical bridging concentration experiments in Xu.
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 as well as the pumping of the composition of Xu for the benefit of increasing bridging likelihood when pumping the fluid into the wellbore without breaking the pump specifications of the system of Rabbani 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]).
Claim 9:The method of claim 1,
Rabbani makes obvious wherein determining the potential is based on size (eq. (1) x is radius of solid particle, [page 160]), shape (eq. (7), sphericity S is a shape parameter, [page 161], which change the radius of the pore in eq. (6), [page 161] which is included in eq. (1), [page 160]), specific gravity (specific gravity is density relative to a known density, so this limitation is claiming specific gravity units (unitless) as the density input in eq’s. (3)-(5), [page 161]; the same equation is eq. (7.48) and eq. (7.56) in the textbook McCabe [pages 166, 170] cited by the reference [page 161 col 1 paragraph 2], examples are provided throughout the book, but Example 5.1 of McCabe shows how specific gravity may be used as a density input, (McCabe [page 109]) and Example 7.2 (McCabe [page 163]) and the problems give specific gravity values as the inputs (see Table 7.2 for problem 7.7 of McCabe [page 179]); this is still a 102(a) rejection because McCabe is defining what is taught by eq. (3) of Rabbani, see MPEP 2131.01 "(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference"), and concentration of the LCM (the 1-epsilon term in eq. (3) and related equations, [page 161]; also called volume fraction of particles see McCabe [page 152 paragraph 2 line 1]; which is how concentration is defined in eq. (1) of the Specification [page 5]), and characteristics of the fracture (radius of the pore in eq. (1), [page 160]).
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]); 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 (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]); determining a permeability of filter cake formed on 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]); and formulating a fluid that includes the LCM, 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 does not expressly recite pumping the fluid that includes the LCM into the well bore.
Xu, however, makes obvious pumping the fluid that includes the LCM into the well bore. (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 a teaching, suggestion, 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.
Rabbani discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for pumping the LCM into the wellbore. Xu teaches that the plugging slurry can be difficult to pump if the bridging particles are too large, (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-21]), so the R value and absolute bridging concentration are determined first (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 21-27]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing bridging likelihood without breaking pump specifications in the system of Rabbani by using Rabbani to determine particle size distribution, but modifying Rabbani with the critical bridging concentration experiments in Xu.
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 as well as the pumping of the composition of Xu for the benefit of increasing bridging likelihood when pumping the fluid into the wellbore without breaking the pump specifications of the system of Rabbani to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
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]);
determining a permeability of filter cake formed due to the LCM in the fracture (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]), 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]); and formulating a composition that includes the LCM, 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 does not expressly recite modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential
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]).
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 a teaching, suggestion, 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.
Rabbani discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for pumping the LCM into the wellbore and modifying the LCM if the LCM does not have the potential. Xu teaches that the plugging slurry can be difficult to pump if the bridging particles are too large, (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 15-21]), so the R value and absolute bridging concentration are determined first (Xu [page 237 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 21-27]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing bridging likelihood without breaking pump specifications in the system of Rabbani by using Rabbani to determine particle size distribution, but modifying Rabbani with the critical bridging concentration experiments in Xu. That way the user of Rabbani could successfully increase likelihood to bridge a fracture without needing to increase particle size which could make the slurry too difficult to pump.
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 as well as the pumping of the composition of Xu for the benefit of increasing bridging likelihood when pumping the fluid into the wellbore without breaking the pump specifications of the system of Rabbani to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
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.
Incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 9, 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.
US 2008/0236891 A1 (Huynh) - A system for testing a drilling fluid including a vessel having a fluid inlet, a filtrate outlet, a fluid outlet, and at least one permeable media disposed within the vessel. The system further including a base fluid container in fluid communication with the fluid inlet, a test fluid container in fluid communication with the fluid inlet, a filtrate container in fluid communication with the filtrate outlet, and a collection container in fluid communication with the fluid outlet, [Abstract].
US9765596 (Savari) - Methods for designing lost circulation materials for use in drilling wellbores penetrating subterranean formations may involve inputting a plurality of first inputs into a numerical method , the plurality of first inputs comprising a lost circulation material property input of a first LCM ; calculating a plurality of first outputs from the numerical method ; input ting a plurality of second inputs into the numerical method , the plurality of second inputs comprising the lost circulation material property input of a second lost circulation material ; calculating a plurality of second outputs from the numerical method ; comparing the first outputs to the second outputs ; and developing a drilling fluid comprising a third lost circulation material based on the comparison of outputs.
“CFD–DEM simulation of mud cake formation in heterogeneous porous medium for lost circulation control” (2020-Poletta) - The lost circulation is a problem commonly observed in well drilling operations under overbalanced pressure conditions. Among the geological formation characteristics that can intensify the loss of drilling fluid, the presence of highly permeable regions is one of the most critical. In this case, corrective measures are necessary, like the use of lost circulation materials (LCM) to build a mud cake in the porous substrate, sealing the pores, and controlling the lost circulation. This work presents a numerical study to understand the influence of fluid–particle interaction under dynamic filtration on the process of particle packing in porous media, resembling the use of LCMs to grow a mud cake and reduce the fluid invasion. The flow of an incompressible Newtonian fluid in a porous medium modeled in pore scale is considered, being the voids structured as an anisotropic array of staggered solid cylinders. The LCM is considered as solid and discrete spherical particles (dp= 0.75 mm) immersed in a water–glycerin fluid. A Euler–Lagrange approach to model the liquid–solid two-phase flow is employed, with the simulation being resorted via the dense discrete phase model coupled to the discrete element method (DEM), [Abstract].
“Numerical Modelling Of Cake Formation And Fluid Loss From Non-Newtonian Muds During Drilling Using Eccentric/Concentric Drill Strings With/Without Rotation” (2000-Fisher) – process shown in FIG. 1, [page 711]; eq. (12) calculates adhesion probability, [page 710] and eq. (16) calculates permeability of the cake, [page 710].
“A Simple Model of Cross-Flow Filtration Based on Particle Adhesion” (1993-Stamatakis) – adhesion probability is eq. (14), [page 1294]; and average permeability of the cake is eq. (29), [page 1299].
“UNIT OPERATIONS OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING” (1993-McCabe) – Most of chapter 7 explains phenomena related to motion of particles through fluids, [page 155-180].
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