DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and a further review of the state of the art, the 112 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that high-shear viscosity is a defined term in the art is persuasive. A further review of the art done by the Examiner, shows that high-shear viscosity is used in GHB models as a parameter as discussed by the Applicant.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: The Combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski does not teach the limitations of the claim as Wisniowski does not disclose the multistep determinative process.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees and notes it is the combination of the two references that teaches the claimed limitations. Here Agapiou is cited as teaching a Rheological “analysis”. The Rheological “analysis” determines all of the necessary properties required by the claim. While a model is not explicitly recited, the “analysis” is still performing all of the steps of the claim. Then Wisniowski explicitly recites the use of a Rheological “model” for the same purpose of determining properties of a drilling fluid. As noted in the office action, using the model of Wisniowski in combination with the analysis of Agapiou minimizes the errors of the parameters. As the combination of the references teaches the claimed limitations, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein particle size distribution” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: “the milled cuttings” which does not properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “particle size distribution” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “particle size distribution” when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “the milled cuttings” which does not properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “particle size distribution” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 6-11 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 12-20 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 6 and 12 recite the abstract idea of designing a treatment fluid, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitations of "(a) determining a set of rheological properties for the treatment fluid and a concentration of the drill cuttings by an analysis via a rheological model generated from at least a defined set of well bore conditions and a defined set of drill cuttings properties, which allows for use of the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid; and” covers mental processes including an evaluation of properties from a model to determine a set of properties that are usable for a given purpose. Additionally in claim 6, the limitation of “(c) determining a target particle size distribution for the drill cuttings by creating an analysis via a rheological model generated from at least a defined set of drill cutting properties for the drill cuttings and a defined set of treatment fluid properties for the treatment of fluid wherein determination of the target particle size distribution for the drill cuttings is based on a target drill cuttings concentration for use of the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid, wherein particle size distribution of the drill cuttings is reduced to match the determined target particle size distribution to produce modified drill cuttings;” covers mental processes including an evaluation of properties from a model to determine a set of properties that are usable for a given purpose and making a judgement about what the particle size should be. Also in claim 12, the limitations of “(b) determining a set of rheological properties for the treatment fluid to suspend a target concentration of drill cuttings in the treatment fluid during downhole operation by an analysis via a rheological model generated from at least a set of well bore conditions for downhole operations and a set of drill cutting properties for the drill cuttings wherein one of the drill cuttings properties of the defined set of drill cuttings properties includes an oil content of the drill cuttings, wherein when the oil content is above a threshold value, excess oil is removed from the drill cuttings until the oil content is below the threshold value; and” cover mental processes including making an evaluation of oil content based on the drill cutting parameters. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11 and 13-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation of “(d) producing the environmental-efficiency fluid based on the determined set of rheological properties and the concentration of the drill cuttings” similarly recited in claims 1, 6 and 12, “blending the selected components to produce treatment fluid in accordance with the formulation; and blending the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid to produce the environmental efficiency fluid.”, in claims 2 and 16, “milling the drilling cuttings to reduce the particle sizes and produce milled cuttings; and separating the milled cuttings to produce the modified drill cuttings having the target particle size distribution.” in claims 7 and 15, “wherein when the oil content is above a threshold value, excess oil is removed from the drill cuttings until the oil content is below the threshold value;” in claim 12 “wherein the step of providing drill cuttings further comprises reducing the particle size distribution of the drill cuttings to match a target particle size distribution.” in claim 14, “wherein the environmental-efficiency fluid is pumped down-hole by one or more pumps” in claim 20, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation of “(a) providing the drill cuttings; (b) providing the treatment fluid;” in claim 6, “(a) providing drill cuttings;” in claim 12, “wherein the step of providing drill cuttings comprises collecting drill cuttings from the drilling of the well” in claim 13, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to determining the level of a biomarker in blood, which has been identified by the courts as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11 and 13-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 6 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation of “(d) producing the environmental-efficiency fluid based on the determined set of rheological properties and the concentration of the drill cuttings” similarly recited in claims 1, 6 and 12, “blending the selected components to produce treatment fluid in accordance with the formulation; and blending the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid to produce the environmental efficiency fluid.”, in claims 2 and 16, “milling the drilling cuttings to reduce the particle sizes and produce milled cuttings; and separating the milled cuttings to produce the modified drill cuttings having the target particle size distribution.” in claims 7 and 15, “wherein when the oil content is above a threshold value, excess oil is removed from the drill cuttings until the oil content is below the threshold value;” in claim 12 “wherein the step of providing drill cuttings further comprises reducing the particle size distribution of the drill cuttings to match a target particle size distribution.” in claim 14, “wherein the environmental-efficiency fluid is pumped down-hole by one or more pumps” in claim 20, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation of “(a) providing the drill cuttings; (b) providing the treatment fluid;” in claim 6, “(a) providing drill cuttings;” in claim 12, “wherein the step of providing drill cuttings comprises collecting drill cuttings from the drilling of the well” in claim 13, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to determining the level of a biomarker in blood, which has been identified by the courts as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as 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 2 and 16 are directed to further defining additional determinations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 9 and 17 are directed to further defining the wellbore conditions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 10 and 18 are directed to further defining the drill cutting properties, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5, 11 and 19 are directed to further defining the rheological properties, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapiou USPPN 2019/0241789 in view of Wisniowski et al. “Selection of a Suitable Rheological Model for Drilling Fluid Using Applied Numerical Methods.”
Regarding claim 1, Agapiou teaches (a) determining a set of rheological properties for the treatment fluid and a concentration of the drill cuttings by an analysis via a rheological analysis generated from at least a defined set of well bore conditions and a defined set of drill cuttings properties, which allows for use of the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid; and ([0045], [0079]-[0090], Tables 6 and 7, a rheological analysis is performed, [0083], the cutting are mixed into the treatment fluid to be pumped back into the formation; [0005], [0039], [0042]-[0043], pressure is defined; [0061], [0064], [0074], drill cutting density is defined)
(d) producing the environmental-efficiency fluid based on the rheological properties and the concentration of drill cuttings. (Abstract, Figures 1 and 2, [0037]-[0039], [0083], a treatment fluid is produced and pumped back into the formation)
Agapiou does not explicitly recite a rheological model
Wisniowski teaches a rheological model (Abstract, Sections 1 and 2, the rheological model is used to determine the properties of actual drilling fluid)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Agapiou with Wisniowski as the references deal with determining properties of wellbore fluids, in order to implement a system that uses a rheological model to determine the rheological properties of wellbore fluids. Wisniowski would modify Agapiou by using a rheological model for the rheological analysis so that the rheological properties of the fluid can be determined. The benefit of doing so is the accuracy of fitting the rheological model to the properties of actual drilling fluid minimizes the errors of the calculated technological parameters applied while drilling oil wells. (Wisniowski Abstract)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski teach the limitations of claim 1. Agapiou also teaches, determining a set of components available for producing the treatment fluid; (Figures 1 and 2, [0037]-[0039], the system contains the components needed to produce the fluid)
determining a formulation of selected components from the set of components, wherein the formulation is predicted to have the set of rheological properties; (Tables 6 and 7, [0074]-[0090], all of the components of the fluid, including the rheological properties, are determined)
blending the selected components to produce the treatment fluid in accordance with the formulation; and (Figure 2, [0001], [0030], [0037]-[0039], [0044], [0083], the components are blended to be put back into the formation; See also Tables 6 and 7, [0074]-[0090])
blending the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid to produce the environmental-efficiency fluid. (Figure 2, [0001], [0030], [0037]-[0039], [0044], [0083], the drill cuttings are also blended into the treatment fluid)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski teach the limitations of claim 1. Agapiou also teaches wherein the set of well bore conditions comprises at least one of temperature, pressure, pH of well bore fluid, or salinity of well bore fluid. ([0005], [0039], [0042]-[0043], pressure is defined)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski teach the limitations of claim 1. Agapiou also teaches wherein the set of drill-cuttings properties comprises at least one of density, particle size distribution, shape factor, oil content or hardness for the drill cuttings. ([0061], [0064], [0074], drill cutting density is defined)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski teach the limitations of claim 1. Agapiou does not explicitly recite wherein the set of rheological properties comprises at least one of yield point, yield stress, and high-shear viscosity.
Wisniowski teaches wherein the set of rheological properties comprises at least one of yield point, yield stress, and high-shear viscosity. (Section 2, Nomenclature, The yield point is one of the rheological properties)
See motivation of claim 1
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapiou in view of Wisniowski and in further view of West et al. USPA 6,290,001.
Regarding claim 6, Agapiou teaches (a) providing the drill cuttings; (Figures 1 and 2, [0030], [0034]-[0035], [0083], the drill cutting are obtained from the formation)
(b) providing the treatment fluid; (Figures 1 and 2, Tables 6 and 7, [0083], the treatment is put back into the wellbore)
(c) determining a target particle size distribution for the drill cuttings by creating an analysis via a rheological analysis generated from at least a defined set of drill cutting properties for the drill cuttings and a defined set of treatment fluid properties for the treatment of fluid wherein determination of the target particle size distribution for the drill cuttings is based on a target drill cuttings concentration for use of the drill cuttings with the treatment fluid, ([0045], [0079]-[0090], Tables 6 and 7, a rheological analysis is performed; [0083], the cutting are mixed into the treatment fluid to be pumped back into the formation; Tables 5-7, [0009], [0056], [0078] target particle size is determined[0039], [0042]-[0043], pressure is defined; [0061], [0064], [0074], drill cutting density is defined; Tables 6 and 7, [0056]-[0057], [0060], [0066], [0073]-[0090], the properties of the fluid are determined)
(d) producing the environmental-efficiency fluid by combining the modified drill cuttings with the treatment fluid. (Abstract, Figures 1 and 2, [0037]-[0039], [0083], a treatment fluid is produced and pumped back into the formation)
Agapiou does not explicitly recite a rheological model
Wisniowski teaches a rheological model (Abstract, Sections 1 and 2, the rheological model is used to determine the properties of actual drilling fluid)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Agapiou with Wisniowski as the references deal with determining properties of wellbore fluids, in order to implement a system that uses a rheological model to determine the rheological properties of wellbore fluids. Wisniowski would modify Agapiou by using a rheological model for the rheological analysis so that the rheological properties of the fluid can be determined. The benefit of doing so is the accuracy of fitting the rheological model to the properties of actual drilling fluid minimizes the errors of the calculated technological parameters applied while drilling oil wells. (Wisniowski Abstract)
The combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski does not explicitly teach wherein particle size distribution of the drill cuttings is reduced to match the determined target particle size distribution to produce modified drill cuttings
West teaches wherein particle size distribution of the drill cuttings is reduced to match the determined target particle size distribution to produce modified drill cuttings (Abstract, Section 2 Lines 29-67, Section 3 Lines 1-27, the particles are ground to a size that is determined not to harm the drill and to the specific sizes of the sieve to be separated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Agapiou and Wisniowski with West as the references deal with determining properties of wellbore fluids, in order to implement a system that grinds the wellbore cuttings to a particular size and separating out portions of the cuttings. West would modify Agapiou and Wisniowski by grinding and separating the drill cuttings to the necessary size. The benefit of doing so is improved sweeping of fines and small drill cuttings or cuttings beds for removal from deviated wellbores and especially from the bottom or lower side of such wellbores. Also, it provides more efficient cleaning of the wellbores during drilling than available with known special treatment fluids, enabling such cleaning to be conducted without stopping the drilling operation. (West Section 2 Lines 55-65)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Agapiou, Wisniowski and West teach the limitations of claim 6. The combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski does not explicitly teach milling the drilling cuttings to reduce the particle sizes and produce milled drill cuttings; and separating the milled cuttings to produce the modified drill cuttings having the target particle size distribution.
West teaches milling the drilling cuttings to reduce the particle sizes and produce milled drill cuttings; and separating the milled cuttings to produce the modified drill cuttings having the target particle size distribution. (Abstract, Section 2 Lines 29-67, Section 3 Lines 1-27, the particles are ground to a size that is determined not to harm the drill and to the specific sizes of the sieve to be separated)
See motivation of claim 6
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Agapiou, Wisniowski and West teach the limitations of claim 6. Agapiou teaches further comprising defining a set of wellbore conditions and wherein the rheological model is additionally generated from the set of well bore conditions([0005], [0039], [0042]-[0043], pressure is defined; ([0045], [0079]-[0090], Tables 6 and 7, a rheological analysis is performed based on the well bore conditions)
Examiner’s Note: The calculation of rheological properties based on well bore conditions is taught by both Agapiou and Wisniowski.
In regards to claim 9, it is the method embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 10, it is the method embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 11, it is the method embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapiou in view of Wisniowski and in further view of Kulkarni et al.
Regarding claim 12, Agapiou teaches (a) providing the drill cuttings; (Figures 1 and 2, [0030], [0034]-[0035], [0083], the drill cutting are obtained from the formation)
b) determining a set of rheological properties for the treatment fluid to suspend a target concentration of drill cuttings in the treatment fluid during downhole operation by an analysis via a rheological analysis generated from at least a set of well bore conditions for downhole operations and a set of drill cutting properties for the drill cuttings wherein one of the drill cuttings properties of the defined set of drill cuttings properties includes an oil content of the drill cuttings, wherein when the oil content is above a threshold value, excess oil is removed from the drill cuttings until the oil content is below the threshold value; and (([0045], [0079]-[0090], Tables 6 and 7, a rheological analysis is performed, [0083], the cutting are mixed into the treatment fluid to be pumped back into the formation; [0005], [0039], [0042]-[0043], pressure is defined; Tables 6 and 7, [0056]-[0057], [0060], [0066], [0073]-[0090], the properties of the fluid are determined)
(c) producing the environmental-efficiency fluid based on the set of rheological properties and the target concentration of drill cuttings. (Abstract, Figures 1 and 2, [0037]-[0039], [0083], a treatment fluid is produced and pumped back into the formation)
Agapiou does not explicitly recite a rheological model
Wisniowski teaches a rheological model (Abstract, Sections 1 and 2, the rheological model is used to determine the properties of actual drilling fluid)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Agapiou with Wisniowski as the references deal with determining properties of wellbore fluids, in order to implement a system that uses a rheological model to determine the rheological properties of wellbore fluids. Wisniowski would modify Agapiou by using a rheological model for the rheological analysis so that the rheological properties of the fluid can be determined. The benefit of doing so is the accuracy of fitting the rheological model to the properties of actual drilling fluid minimizes the errors of the calculated technological parameters applied while drilling oil wells. (Wisniowski Abstract)
The combination of Agapiou and Wisniowski does not explicitly teach wherein one of the drill cuttings properties of the defined set of drill cuttings properties includes an oil content of the drill cuttings, wherein when the oil content is above a threshold value, excess oil is removed from the drill cuttings until the oil content is below the threshold value;
Kulkarni teaches wherein one of the drill cuttings properties of the defined set of drill cuttings properties includes an oil content of the drill cuttings, wherein when the oil content is above a threshold value, excess oil is removed from the drill cuttings until the oil content is below the threshold value; ([0009], [0015], [0040], the concentration of oil is modified until the desired concentration is achieved)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Agapiou and Wisniowski with Kulkarni as the references deal with determining properties of wellbore fluids, in order to implement a system that modifies the oil content of the treatment fluid. Kulkarni would modify Agapiou and Wisniowski by adjusting the amount of oil in the treatment fluid. The benefit of doing so is a stable treatment fluid can be created and introduced into the subterranean formation. (Kulkarni Abstract)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Agapiou, Wisniowski and Kulkarni teach the limitations of claim 12. Agapiou teaches wherein the step of providing drill cuttings comprises collecting drill cuttings from the drilling of the well. (Figures 1 and 2, [0030], [0034]-[0035], [0083], the drill cutting are obtained from the formation)
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapiou in view of Wisniowski, in further view of Kulkarni, and in further view of West.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Agapiou, Wisniowski and Kulkarni teach the limitations of claim 13. The combination of Agapiou, Wisniowski and Kulkarni does not explicitly teach wherein the step of providing drill cuttings further comprises reducing the particle size distribution of the drill cuttings to match a target particle size distribution.
West teaches wherein the step of providing drill cuttings further comprises reducing the particle size distribution of the drill cuttings to match a target particle size distribution. (Abstract, Section 2 Lines 29-67, Section 3 Lines 1-27, the particles are ground to a size that is determined not to harm the drill and to the specific sizes of the sieve to be separated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Agapiou, Wisniowski and Kulkarni with West as the references deal with determining properties of wellbore fluids, in order to implement a system that grinds the wellbore cuttings to a particular size and separating out portions of the cuttings. West would modify Agapiou, Wisniowski and Kulkarni by grinding and separating the drill cuttings to the necessary size. The benefit of doing so is improved sweeping of fines and small drill cuttings or cuttings beds for removal from deviated wellbores and especially from the bottom or lower side of such wellbores. Also, it provides more efficient cleaning of the wellbores during drilling than available with known special treatment fluids, enabling such cleaning to be conducted without stopping the drilling operation. (West Section 2 Lines 55-65)
In regards to claim 15, it is the method embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
In regards to claim 16, it is the method embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 17, it is the method embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 18, it is the method embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, it is the method embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Agapiou, Wisniowski, Kulkarni and West teach the limitations of claim 19. Agapiou teaches wherein the environmental-efficiency fluid is pumped down-hole by one or more pumps. (Figures 1 and 2, [0037]-[0039], [0083], the treatment fluid is pumped into the formation)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Becker et al. “Improved Rheology Model and Hydraulics Analysis for Tomorrow’s Wellbore Fluid Applications”: Also teaches the use of a rheological model with a GHB model to determine a treatment fluid.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188