DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2 is presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2021111305535, filed on 09/26/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement submitted on 09/26/2022 was failed. See attached file for considered documents and only English translated documents are reviewed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As of claim 2,
PNG
media_image1.png
25
94
media_image1.png
Greyscale
both variables are not defined in the claim. According to the specification on para 07 and claim 1 S3, ΔσrNN variables is considered as induced stress (Pa), NN are subscript, and represent width direction of fracture, for rth stratum.
Examiner Note: if σrh is a minimum horizontal principal stress of a rth stratum (Pa), on claim 2, ρrh should be σrh . If not define the variables.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention recites a judicial exception, which is directed to judicial exception of an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claim further do not recite significantly more that the judicial exception.
Step 1: Yes, the claims 1-2 are directed to a method, so it falls within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A: prong one: Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Recording claims 1-2, the bolded claim limitations recite abstract idea which falls under a mathematical concept:
A method for predicting fracture height during fracturing stimulation in multi-layer formation, comprising the following step:
S1 acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture;( (insignificant extra solution activity – data gathering)
S2: calculating displacement discontinuity quantities D of n artificial fractures based on a displacement discontinuity method.
S3: calculating induced stress Δσ generated by then artificial fractures on an n+ 1th fracture
S4: calculating stress intensity factors Kr+ and Kr- at fracture tips of the n+ 1th fracture without considering the fracture tip plasticity based on an equilibrium
height theory
S5: calculating sizes Su and S1 of a plastic zone at the fracture tip of the n+ 1th fracture;
S6: calculating stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- at fracture tips of then+ 1th fracture considering the plastic zone;
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, all the bolded claim limitations(S2-S6) recite a mathematical concept. The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010)
S7: judging whether the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- are greater than a fracture toughness at the fracture tip; when the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- are greater than the fracture toughness, getting back to the step S4; and when the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- are not greater than the fracture toughness, ending the operation to output the n+ l'h fracture height. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation this claim limitation also recites a mental process. A human can make observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions based on the calculated data in order to make a judgment based on the gathered information like fracture toughness. A person of ordinary skill in the art can make a comparation between the calculated value (stress intensity factors) to fracture toughness ( gathered information on step 1) using a pen and paper. a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 further recites a mathematical concept. wherein in the step S6, the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- at an upper tip and a lower tip of the n+ 1th fracture are that:
PNG
media_image2.png
238
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is a numerical formula or equation which fall within a mathematical concept grouping. As it was explained on claim 1, this claim limitation is also an abstract idea as judicial exceptions .
Step 2A: prong two: No
The above judicially exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely or use the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Claims recites gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in
conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract
mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1, S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture; (insignificant extra solution activity – data gathering).
The claim gathers data and use in a mathematical calculation starting from step 2-6, in order to calculate stress intensity factor and to make a judgment by comparing with fracture toughness. Therefore this claims essentially uses a mathematical calculation to compare gathered and calculated value, to find n+1th fracture height, so the claim is nothing more than a mathematical exercise to make a comparation.
While the claims recite: A method for predicting fracture height during fracturing
stimulation in multi-layer formation, and uses the above abstract ideas, such limitation are not indicative of a practical application because these elements merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, a predicting method is merely linked to abstract idea as it was explained in step 2A prong 2 above and such limitations are not indicative of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-2 are not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuwei Li, Min Long, Jizhou Tang, et al. A hydraulic fracture height mathematical model considering the influence of plastic region at fracture tip[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2020, 47(01):175-185), in the view of Liu Songxia, Valko Peter P. A Rigorous Hydraulic-Fracture Equilibrium-Height Model for Multilayer Formations[J]. SPE Production & Operations, 2018, 33 (02):214-234.) further in the view of Jizhou Tang, Kan Wu, Yanchao Li, et al. Numerical investigation of the interactions between hydraulic fracture and bedding planes with nonorthogonal approach angle[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 200:1-16.)
As of claim 1 Yuwei teaches A method for predicting fracture height during fracturing stimulation in multi-layer formation comprising the following steps,( Abstract, to predict fracture height in hydraulic fracturing, we developed and solved a hydraulic fracture height mathematical model aiming at high stress and multi-layered complex formations based on studying the effect of plastic region generated by stress concentration at fracture tip on the growth of fracture heigh.)
S4: calculating stress intensity factors Kr+ and Kr- at fracture tips of the n+ 1th fracture without considering the fracture tip plasticity based on an equilibrium height theory( section 2.1, “derivation of the fracture height model”, When the influence of the plastic zone at the fracture tip is not considered (the blue area in Fig. 3), referring to Liu et model, the stress intensity factors at the upper and lower ends of the fracture can be expressed as:
PNG
media_image3.png
240
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
S5: calculating sizes Su and Si of a plastic zone at the fracture tip of the n+ 1th fracture; ( section 1-2 , page 186- 187,
PNG
media_image4.png
209
489
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein e represents the size of plastic zone, plastic zone height ed and eu are calculated).
S6: calculating stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- at fracture tips of the n+ 1th fracture considering the plastic zone; ( Section 2.1, “derivation of the fracture height model”, When the influence of the plastic zone at the fracture tip is considered, the stress intensity factor at the lower fracture tip in the layer i is:
PNG
media_image5.png
24
435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
213
510
media_image6.png
Greyscale
S7: judging whether the stress intensity factors K'r+ andK'r- are greater than a fracture toughness at the fracture tip; when the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- are greater than the fracture toughness, getting back to the step S4; and when the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- are not greater than the fracture toughness, ending the operation to output the n+ 1th fracture height. ( Section 2.2, “Solving method of the fracture height model”, When the influence of the plastic zone at the fracture tip is considered, stress intensity factors KI2− and KI2+ are calculated by the integration and compared with formation rock fracture toughness KIC,i. When KI2− and KI2+ are lower than KIC,i, the fracture height stops growing and B is obtained. When KI2− and KI2+ are higher than KIC,i, the fracture height continues to grow. KI2− and KI2+ are further obtained by accumulative integral until KI2− and KI2+ are lower than KIC,i, when the fracture height stops growing, and the fracture half height B is obtained.)
Yuwei does not explicitly teach S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture, S2: calculating displacement discontinuity quantities D of an artificial fractures based on a displacement discontinuity method; S3: calculating induced stress Δσ generated by then artificial fractures on an n+ 1th fracture.
While Liu teaches S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture( Introduction, Generally, five parameters mainly affect fracture height: in-situ stress, weak layer interfaces (and its shear strength), fracture toughness, mechanical properties (Young's modulus, shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and tensile strength), and fracturing-fluid leadoff. Regarding the first parameter, in-situ stress has been recognized as the most important factor to contain fracture height)
Liu is considered to be analogous to, Yuwei and the claimed invention because they focus on computing of hydraulic fracture height. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Liu teaching of acquiring parameters of geology and fracture and using of equilibrium height model to calculate stress intensity factors with or with out considering a plastic zone.
The motivation would have been by acquiring main parameters that affect fracture height with the help of equilibrium height method helps for more-accurate and -cost-effective hydraulic-fracturing designs by considering fracturing height.( Liu, Summery)
The combined model of Yuwei and Liu do not explicitly teach S2: calculating displacement discontinuity quantities D of an artificial fractures based on a displacement discontinuity method; S3: calculating induced stress Δσ generated by then artificial fractures on an n+ 1th fracture.
While Jizhou teaches S2: calculating displacement discontinuity quantities D of an artificial fractures based on a displacement discontinuity method (section 2 ,” methodology”, In this paper, we developed a fracture model based on a direct boundary element method named as displacement discontinuity method (DDM), which can be implemented in the cases of the interaction between the vertical fracture and the oblique interface in three dimensions. Due to its high computational efficiency, DDM has been widely applied in modeling hydraulic fracture treatments for both homogeneous and multi-layered formations [33–37], DSL is the shear displacement discontinuity in the fracture length direction, DSH is the shear displacement discontinuity in the fracture height direction, DNN is the normal displacement discontinuity, also called fracture
PNG
media_image7.png
129
521
media_image7.png
Greyscale
S3: calculating induced stress Δσ generated by then artificial fractures on an n+ 1th fracture.( section 2 , “Methodology”, It is of great importance to consider the non-depersonalization for 3D DDM (non- -dimensionalization methodology are proposed in Appendix B). We can then determine the normalized induced normal stress σNN and shear stresses σSL, σSH after coordinate transformation and non-dimensionalization
PNG
media_image8.png
269
831
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jizhou is considered to be analogous to, the combined model of Yuwei and Liu, and the claimed invention because they focus on computing of hydraulic fracture height. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Jizhou teaching calculating displacement discontinuity quantities and calculating induced stress on the combined model on artificial fracture in order to judging whether the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- are greater than a fracture toughness at the fracture tip.
The motivation would have been due to its high computational efficiency of displacement discontinuity method, it helps to accurately predict both stresses and displacements for the field points closer than one element length (Jizhou, Methodology)
As of claim 2 the combined model of Yuwei, Liu and Jizhou teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and , Yuwei also teaches wherein in the step S6, the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- at an upper tip and a lower tip of the n+ 1th
fracture is that:
PNG
media_image9.png
474
1040
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Section 1 and 2.1, page 186 -187
PNG
media_image10.png
343
504
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
190
499
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Zhu; Weiyao (US 10761241 B2, Date Published 2020-09-01), this invention also establishes a stress distribution and induced stress distribution model of multi-segment multi-bunch fracturing for a horizontal well.
ZHOU, LEI (CN 115524238 A, Date Published 2022-12-27), this invention also calculating the stress intensity factor time curve of the crack tip according to displacement extrapolation, and combining the crack propagation time and crack dynamic fracture time measured by experiment to determine crack propagation and dynamic fracture toughness of the crack propagation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/A.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188