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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 17/906044 has claims 47-92 pending.
Priority / Filing Date
Current application is the national stage entry (371) of internation application PCT/US21/22205, which claims priority from U.S. provisional application No. 62/989,547. The priority filing date of this application is March 13, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated January 11, 2023, March 7, 2024 and May 6, 2024 are acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 47-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 47 recite
determining, with an analytical solution, a change to at least one control point of a boundary of a control volume defined in a subterranean formation;
determining, with a numerical solution, a fluid pressure change of the control
volume based on the change to the at least one control point;
determining, with a solver, at least one dimension of at least one of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture based at least in part on the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume.
All of which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, calculations, analysis as well as formulas or equations. Said limitations in claims 47 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation that covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “one or more memory modules” and “one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules” in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being considered as mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation that are considered mathematical concept including mathematical relationships, calculation, analysis but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. As such claim 47 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “one or more memory modules” and “one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “the change to the at least one control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation” is an insignificant pre-solution activity. As such this additional element also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Finally, the pre-processing step of “the change to the at least one control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation” is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g). Claim 47 only recite “one or more memory modules” and “one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the determining steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 47 is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 48-51 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a displacement field, evaluating a displacement vector of the displacement field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one displacement on the boundary of the control volume, defining the displacement field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 52-55 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a stress field, evaluating a stress tensor of the stress field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one stress on the boundary of the control volume, defining the stress field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 56-59 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a strain field, evaluating a strain tensor of the strain field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one strain on the boundary of the control volume, defining the strain field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 60-63 are directed to further limiting the change to the at least one control point using mathematical calculation and analysis which includes defining a traction field, evaluating a traction vector of the strain field, determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume, defines at least one strain on the boundary of the control volume, defining the traction field in terms of control points- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 64-74 are directed to further limiting the composition and dimension of the control volume and hydraulic fracture using mathematical calculation and analysis - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 75-84 are directed to further limiting the details of analytical solutions in terms of mathematical formula/equations and parameters of the mathematical formula/equations - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claims 85-92 are directed to further limiting preforming dimension optimization of the control volume by the solver using mathematical calculation and analysis - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 47-74, 85-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Spicer et al., hereafter Spicer (Pub. No.: US 2019/0128110 A1).
Regarding Claim 47, Spicer discloses a distributed computing system, comprising:
one or more memory modules (Spicer: [0004]: memory); and
one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory
modules and configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memory modules to
perform operations (Spicer: [0004]: a memory in communication with the one or more hardware processors that stores a data structure and an execution environment) comprising:
determining, with an analytical solution, a change to at least one control point of a boundary of a control volume defined in a subterranean formation, the change to the at least one control point caused by a hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation (Spicer: [0075]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114));
determining, with a numerical solution, a fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point (Spicer: [0139]: poromechanical signals can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin").; and
determining, with a solver, at least one dimension of at least one of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture based at least in part on the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume (Spicer: claims 1, 20: a hydraulic fracture geometry solver configured to
perform operations…….executing a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with the
plurality of observed fluid pressures, the at least one objective function comprising a first objective function, and minimizing the first objective function comprises minimizing a difference between the observed pressure and a modeled pressure associated with the first and second hydraulic fractures, the modeled pressure determined with a finite element method that outputs the modeled pressure based on inputs that comprise parameters of a hydraulic fracture operation and the respective sets of hydraulic fracture geometries of the first and second hydraulic fractures).
Regarding Claim 48, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the change to the at least one control point comprises a displacement field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 49, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 48, wherein the operation of determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point comprises:
evaluating a displacement vector of the displacement field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")); and
determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the evaluation of
the displacement vector (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 50, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 48, wherein the at least one control point defines at least one displacement on the boundary of the control volume (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 51, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 50, wherein the at least one control point comprises a plurality of control points that define the displacement field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 52, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the change to the at least one control point comprises a stress field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 53, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 52, wherein the operation of determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point comprises:
evaluating a stress tensor of the stress field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")); and
determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the evaluation of the stress tensor (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 54, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 52, wherein the at least one control point defines at least one stress on the boundary of the control volume (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 55, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 54, wherein the at least one control point comprises a plurality of control points that define the stress field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 56, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the change to the at least one control point comprises a strain field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 57, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 56, wherein the operation of determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point comprises:
evaluating a strain tensor of the strain field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")); and
determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the evaluation of
the strain tensor (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 58, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 56, wherein the at least one control point defines at least one strain on the boundary of the control volume (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 59, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 58, wherein the at least one control point comprises a plurality of control points that define the strain field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 60, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the change to the at least one control point comprises a traction field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 61, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 60, wherein the operation of determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the change to the at least one control point comprises:
evaluating a traction vector of the traction field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")); and
determining the fluid pressure change of the control volume based on the evaluation of
the traction vector (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 62, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 60, wherein the at least one control point defines at least one traction on the boundary of the control volume (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 63, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 62, wherein the at least one control point comprises a plurality of control points that define the traction field (Spicer: [0075], [0139]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114) and the poromechanical signal can be used to estimate hydraulic fracture geometry, for example, a three-dimensional numerical finite element analysis (FEA) used to generate modeled pressure responses with which the comparison to field observations takes place is an example of a "digital twin")).
Regarding Claim 64, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the control volume comprises at least a portion of a wellbore formed from a terranean surface to the subterranean formation, and the wellbore is fluidly sealed from the hydraulic fracture (Spicer: paragraph [0063] and figure IA: the monitor wellbore (108), generally, includes a plug (122) or other fluid barrier positioned in the wellbore (108), and a pressure sensor (114), and the monitor wellbore (108) may be used to measure pressure variations in a fluid contained in the wellbore (108) and/or one or more hydraulic fractures 110 formed from the monitor wellbore (108) that are induced by a hydraulic fracturing fluid pumped into a treatment wellbore (106) to form one or more hydraulic fractures (112) formed from the treatment wellbore (106)).
Regarding Claim 65, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 64, wherein the at least one control point comprises a plurality of control points representative of a plurality of displacements on a boundary of the portion of the well bore (Spicer: paragraph [0063] and figure 1A: the pressure sensor (114) is located at or near a wellhead on the monitor wellbore (108) but in alternate implementations, the pressure sensor (114) may be positioned within the monitor wellbore (108) below the terranean surface (102)).
Regarding Claim 66, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 64, wherein the wellbore comprises a first wellbore, and the hydraulic fracture formed in or adjacent the subterranean formation emanates from a second wellbore different than the first wellbore (Spicer: [0063] and figure 1A: the monitor wellbore (108), generally, includes a plug (122) or other fluid barrier positioned in the wellbore (108), and a pressure sensor (114), and the monitor wellbore (108) may be used to measure pressure variations in a fluid contained in the wellbore (108) and/or one or more hydraulic fractures 110 formed from the monitor wellbore (108) that are induced by a hydraulic fracturing fluid pumped into a treatment wellbore (106) to form one or more hydraulic fractures (112) formed from the treatment wellbore (106)).
Regarding Claim 67, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 64, wherein the at least one dimension of the hydraulic fracture comprises at least one of a half-length of the hydraulic fracture, a length of the hydraulic fracture, a half-height of the hydraulic fracture, or a height of the hydraulic fracture (Spicer: 1A: one or more hydraulic fractures (110, 112)).
Regarding Claim 68, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the hydraulic fracture is a first hydraulic fracture that emanates from a first wellbore formed in the subterranean formation, and the control volume comprises a second hydraulic fracture that emanates from a second wellbore formed in the subterranean formation that is different than the first wellbore (Spicer: [0063] and figure 1A: the monitor wellbore (108), generally, includes a plug (122) or other fluid barrier positioned in the wellbore (108), and a pressure sensor (114), and the monitor wellbore (108) may be used to measure pressure variations in a fluid contained in the wellbore (108) and/or one or more hydraulic fractures 110 formed from the monitor wellbore (108) that are induced by a hydraulic fracturing fluid pumped into a treatment wellbore (106) to form one or more hydraulic fractures (112) formed from the treatment wellbore (106)).
Regarding Claim 69, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 68, wherein the at least one control point comprises a plurality of control points representative of at least one of a displacement, a stress tensor, a strain tensor, or a traction vector on a boundary of the second hydraulic fracture (Spicer: [0075]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114)).
Regarding Claim 70, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 68, wherein the at least one dimension of the hydraulic fracture comprises at least one of a half-length of the first hydraulic fracture, a length of the first hydraulic fracture, a half-height of the first hydraulic fracture, or a height of the first hydraulic fracture (Spicer: 1A: one or more hydraulic fractures (110, 112)).
Regarding Claim 71, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 68, wherein the at least one dimension of the control volume comprises at least one of a half-length of the second hydraulic fracture, a length of the second hydraulic fracture, a half-height of the second hydraulic fracture, or a height of the second hydraulic fracture (Spicer: 1A: one or more hydraulic fractures (110, 112)).
Regarding Claim 72, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the hydraulic fracture emanates from a first wellbore formed in the subterranean formation, and the control volume comprises a sealed section of a second wellbore formed in the subterranean formation that is different than the first wellbore (Spicer: [0063] and figure 1A: the monitor wellbore (108), generally, includes a plug (122) or other fluid barrier positioned in the wellbore (108), and a pressure sensor (114), and the monitor wellbore (108) may be used to measure pressure variations in a fluid contained in the wellbore (108) and/or one or more hydraulic fractures 110 formed from the monitor wellbore (108) that are induced by a hydraulic fracturing fluid pumped into a treatment wellbore (106) to form one or more hydraulic fractures (112) formed from the treatment wellbore (106)).
Regarding Claim 73, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 72, wherein the at least one control point comprises at least one displacement representative of at least one of a displacement, a stress tensor, a strain tensor, or a traction vector on a boundary of the sealed section (Spicer: [0075]: the change in stress on a rock in contact with the fluids in the fracture (112) can be measured as a pressure-induced poromechanical signal in the pressure sensor (114)).
Regarding Claim 74, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 72, wherein the at least one dimension of the hydraulic fracture comprises at least one of a half-length of the hydraulic fracture, a length of the hydraulic fracture, a half-height of the hydraulic fracture, or a height of the hydraulic fracture (Spicer: 1A: one or more hydraulic fractures (110, 112)).
Regarding Claim 85, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the operation of determining, with the solver executed by the one or more hardware processors, at least one dimension of at least one of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture based at least in part on the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume, comprises:
performing, with the solver, a global analysis to determine the at least one dimension of the control volume (Spicer: 1A: [0004]: the execution environment includes a hydraulic fracture geometry solver configured to perform operations including (i) executing a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with the plurality of observed fluid pressures, and (ii) based on minimizing the at least one objective function, determining respective sets of hydraulic fracture geometries
associated with at least one of the first hydraulic fracture or the second hydraulic fracture); and
performing, with the solver, a local analysis to determine the at least one dimension of the
hydraulic fracture (Spicer: 1A: [0004]: the execution environment includes a hydraulic fracture geometry solver configured to perform operations including (i) executing a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with the plurality of observed fluid pressures, and (ii) based on minimizing the at least one objective function, determining respective sets of hydraulic fracture geometries
associated with at least one of the first hydraulic fracture or the second hydraulic fracture).
Regarding Claim 86, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 85, wherein the operation of performing the global analysis comprises:
performing, with the solver, a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with at least one fluid pressure measured by a pressure sensor in fluid communication with the control volume (Spicer: 1A: [0004]: the execution environment includes a hydraulic fracture geometry solver configured to perform operations including (i) executing a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with the plurality of observed fluid pressures, and (ii) based on minimizing the at least one objective function, determining respective sets of hydraulic fracture geometries associated with at least one of the first hydraulic fracture or the second hydraulic fracture);
and
based on minimizing the at least one objective function, determining, with the solver, the at least one dimension of the control volume (Spicer: 1A: [0004]: the execution environment includes a hydraulic fracture geometry solver configured to perform operations including (i) executing a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with the plurality of observed fluid pressures, and (ii) based on minimizing the at least one objective function, determining respective sets of hydraulic fracture geometries associated with at least one of the first hydraulic fracture or the second hydraulic fracture).
Regarding Claim 87, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 86, wherein the at least one objective function comprises a first objective function, and minimizing the first objective function comprises:
minimizing a difference between the at least one fluid pressure and the determined fluid pressure change of the control volume (Spicer: 1A: [0004]: the execution environment includes a hydraulic fracture geometry solver configured to perform operations including (i) executing a single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis to minimize at least one objective function associated with the plurality of observed fluid pressures, and (ii) based on minimizing the at least one objective function, determining respective sets of hydraulic fracture geometries associated with at least one of the first hydraulic fracture or the second hydraulic fracture).
Regarding Claim 88, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 87, wherein the operations further comprise assessing, with the solver, a shift penalty to the first objective function (Spicer: [0007]: the solver is further configured to perform operations including assessing a shift penalty to the first objective function).
Regarding Claim 89, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 47, wherein the operations further comprise minimizing, with the solver, a second objective function associated with an area of the control volume or the hydraulic fracture (Spicer: [0010]: the hydraulic fracture geometry solver is further configured to perform operations including minimizing a second objective function associated with at least one of an area of the first or second hydraulic fracture).
.
Regarding Claim 90, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 89, wherein the operation of minimizing the second objective function comprises at least one of:
minimizing a difference between the area of the control volume and an average area of a group of control volumes that comprises the control volume (Spicer: [0011]: the operation of minimizing the second objective function includes at least one of minimizing a difference between the area of the first hydraulic fracture and an average area of a group of hydraulic fractures in a hydraulic fracturing stage group that includes the first hydraulic fracture; or minimizing a difference between the area of the second hydraulic fracture and an average area of a group of hydraulic fractures in a hydraulic fracturing stage group that includes the second hydraulic fracture); or
minimizing a difference between the area of the hydraulic fracture and an average area of a group of hydraulic fractures in a hydraulic fracturing stage group that comprises the hydraulic
fracture (Spicer: [0011]: the operation of minimizing the second objective function includes at least one of minimizing a difference between the area of the first hydraulic fracture and an average area of a group of hydraulic fractures in a hydraulic fracturing stage group that includes the first hydraulic fracture; or minimizing a difference between the area of the second hydraulic fracture and an average area of a group of hydraulic fractures in a hydraulic fracturing stage group that includes the second hydraulic fracture).
Regarding Claim 91, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 90, wherein the operations further comprise applying, with the solver, a constraint to the single- or multi-objective, nonlinear constrained optimization analysis associated with at least one of a center of the control volume or a center of the hydraulic fracture (Spicer: [0012]: the hydraulic fracture geometry solver is further configured to perform operations including applying a constraint to the single- or multi-objective, non-linear constrained optimization analysis associated with at least one of a center of the first hydraulic fracture or a center of the second hydraulic fracture).
Regarding Claim 92, Spicer further disclose the distributed computing system of claim 89, wherein the operations further comprise iterating the steps until:
an error for at least one of the first or second objective functions is less than a specified value (Spicer: [0014]: the hydraulic fracture geometry solver is further configured to perform operations including iterating steps (i) and (ii) until an error for at least one of the first or second objective functions is less than a specified value; and
a change in the determined plurality of fracture geometry data for the first hydraulic fracture from a previous iteration to a current iteration is less than the specified value); and
a change in the determined at least one dimension for the control volume or the hydraulic fracture from a previous iteration to a current iteration is less than the specified value (Spicer: [0014]: the hydraulic fracture geometry solver is further configured to perform operations including iterating steps (i) and (ii) until an error for at least one of the first or second objective functions is less than a specified value; and a change in the determined plurality of fracture geometry data for the first hydraulic fracture from a previous iteration to a current iteration is less than the specified value).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Spicer et al., hereafter Spicer (Pub. No.: US 2019/0128110 A1), in view of Xu et al. hereafter Xu (Patent No.: US 8,184,502 B2).
Regarding Claim 77, Spicer donot explicitly disclose wherein the analytical solution comprises a modified Eshelby solution.
Xu discloses wherein the analytical solution comprises a modified Eshelby solution (Xu: column 16, lines 63-67: since the anisotropic dry rock approximation has analytical solution, Sijkl can be calculated using Eshelby's equations for the isotropic matrix (Eshelby 1957)).
Spicer and Xu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to Hydrocarbon modeling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above hydraulic fractures geometry modeling application, as taught by Spicer, and incorporating the use of Eshelby tensor, as taught by Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to describe a pore geometry effect on effective elastic properties of porous rock in the subsurface region, as suggested by Xu (Xu: page 83 column 23 lines 14-16).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 75-76, 78-84 distinguish over the prior art of record based on the following reasons:
With regards to Claims 75-76, 78-84, the closest prior art, Spicer and Xu, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious:
wherein the analytical solution comprises
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 75)
wherein the analytical solution comprises
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 76)
wherein the modified Eshelby solution comprises one or more equations that determines the at least one control point based at least in part on a plurality of parameters that are associated with the control volume and the hydraulic fracture. (Claim 78)
wherein at least one of the equations comprises:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Claim 82)
calculating, with the numerical solution executed by the one or more hardware processors, a pressure transfer function on the control volume based on the fluid pressure change on the control volume. (Claim 83)
wherein the pressure transfer function comprises:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Claim 84)
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matthew A. Dawson (Pub. No.: US 20180003033 A1) teaches systems and methods for assessing geometric fractures parameters in a subsurface formation, wherein one or more geometric parameters of the second and third fractures may be assessed using the first pressure signal and the second pressure signal.
KAMPFER et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170002652 A1) teaches a method of evaluating a geometric parameter of a first fracture emanating from a first wellbore penetrating a subterranean formation by determining the geometric parameter of the first fracture using at least the measured first pressure change in an analysis which couples a solid mechanics equation and a pressure diffusion equation.
Kashikar et al. (Pub. No.: US 20180258760 A1) conceptually presents a wellbore system includes a first fracture formed from a wellbore at a first location; a second fracture formed from the wellbore at a second location; a wellbore seal positioned in the wellbore between the first and second locations and configured to fluidly seal a first portion from a second portion of the wellbore.
Bunger et al. (Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Viscosity-Dominated Regime, 2007, SPE, pp 1-11) demonstrates the intimate connection between the tip aperture and the fracture propagation regime, and report the results of hydraulic fracturing laboratory experiments in PMMA and glass blocks that employ a novel optical technique to measure the fracture opening.
7. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187