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 are presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 05/01/2026.
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 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.) further in the view of Han, Xu, et al. "Study on rock mechanics parameters and in-situ stress profile construction and correction method based on well log interpretation." Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils 57.3 (2021): 518-528.
This action is Final rejection.
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 IDS submitted on 09/26/2022 is reviewed and considered. See attached document.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the claim, 35 USC 112 rejection is Withdrawn.
Applicants Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s argument: The amended claims do not recite a bare mathematical formula or calculation. Instead, Step S1 explicitly ties the method to real-world physical parameters measured from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, with specific, critical numerical ranges for minimum horizontal principal stress, fracture toughness, shear modulus, and Poisson's ratio. The amended claims integrate that exception into a practical application and it includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Examiner Response: the examiner disagrees that the amended claims do not recite a bare mathematical formula or calculation. Step 2-6, ”calculating… ” is a mathematical concept, the calculation is performed using a mathematical equations as it is addressed on the specification from [0006] –[0016]. The applicant also argues S1 explicitly ties the method to real-world physical parameters measured from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, but S1 is insignificant extra activity – data gathering, it merely gathering parameter in order to use in the mathematical equation and it doesn’t use any additional element or step to acquire the parameters from the reservoir so it is merely data gathering. The abstract ideas step 2-6 and claim 2, is not integrated to practical application, obtaining information from the sandstone gas reservoir is not integrating into a practical application. The applicant has not pointed out or recite additional element on the claim that integrated the abstract idea into practical application or improvement on the additional elements MPEP 2106.05(a): "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements... " Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology."
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
• Applicants Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
• Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s argument: Liu only provides a generic list of parameters that may affect fracture height in its introduction, with no specific numerical ranges for the input parameters, Li (Yuwei ) discloses a general concept of considering fracture tip plasticity, it does not disclose the specific iterative loop set forth in the claimed invention., the Examiner has failed to establish a proper motivation to combine the references, as required by KSR and MPEP § 2143.
Examiner response: the examiner agrees that Liu failed to provide list of parameters that affect fracture height with in a specific numerical range, so a newly combined model of Yuwei -Han teaches parameters that affect fracture height with in the claimed specific numerical range (see new 103 claim rejection below.
The examiner disagrees Li (Yuwei ) discloses a general concept of considering fracture tip plasticity, it does not disclose the specific iterative loop set forth in the claimed invention, since Yuwei teaches computing of hydraulic fracture height using a mathematical model by considering the influence of plastic region, and stress intensity factors K12- and K12+ are calculated by the integration and compared with formation rock fracture toughness K1c,I, Yuwei also teaches comparing stress factor with threshold (KIC,i,), and it will continue computing stress factor until the stress factor is lower than threshold. While the mathematical equation of computing stress intensity factors is derived using S4-S6,so it would be obvious to try to perform iteratively since Yuwei already teaches computing intensity facture until it is lower than the threshold.
Based on amended claim a newly combined model is used, so a new motivation is also written below under 35 USC 103 rejection.
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:
S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, wherein the parameters comprise a minimum horizontal principal stress of 38 to 53 MPa, a fracture toughness of 2 to 9 MPa·m112
, a shear modulus of 20 to 50 GPa, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.17 to 0.35; (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
S2: calculating displacement discontinuity quantities D of n artificial fractures
based on a displacement discontinuity method.
S3: calculating induced stress l:ia 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 51 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, see [0006]-[0016] on specification. 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, 67 4 (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. Kappas, 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 54; 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 lmmunotherapies, 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 56, 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_image1.png
629
1412
media_image1.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 from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, wherein the parameters comprise a minimum horizontal principal stress of 38 to 53 MPa, a fracture toughness of 2 to 9 MPa·m112
, a shear modulus of 20 to 50 GPa, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.17 to 0.35; (insignificant extra solution activity - data gathering such as such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The claim gathers data from dense sandstone gas reservoir 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+1 th 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. Kappas, 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 28: 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 and acquiring data from real world without any specific method or element 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 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.) further in the view of Han, Xu, et al. "Study on rock mechanics parameters and in-situ stress profile construction and correction method based on well log interpretation." Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils 57.3 (2021): 518-528.
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.)
S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, wherein the parameters comprise a minimum horizontal principal stress of 38 to 53 MPa, a fracture toughness of 2 to 9 MPa1/2 , σh,1) was set at 35, 45, 55, 65 MPa, the model in this paper was used to calculate
and plot the hydraulic fracture height growth curves (Fig. 6)… section 3.3, The rock fracture toughness (KIC,6) of the underlying stratum was set at 0.5, 5.5, 10.5 and 15.5 MPa 1/2 respectively)
S4: calculating stress intensity factors K,+ and Kr- at fracture tips of the n+ 1thfracture 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_image2.png
301
666
media_image2.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_image3.png
270
633
media_image3.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_image4.png
39
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
280
664
media_image5.png
Greyscale
S7: judging whether the stress intensity factors K',+ and K'r- are greater than a fracture toughness at the fracture tip; when the stress intensity factors K',+ and K',- are greater than the fracture toughness, getting back to the step 54; and when the stress intensity factors K',+ and K',- 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 K12- and K12+ are calculated by the integration and compared with formation rock fracture toughness K1c,i. When K12- and K12+ are lower than K1c,i, the fracture height stops growing and B is obtained. When K12-
and K12+ are higher than K1c,i, the fracture height continues to grow. K12- and K12+ are further obtained by accumulative integral until Kl2- and Kl2+ are lower than K1c,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 from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, wherein the parameters, a shear modulus of 20 to 50 GPa, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.17 to 0.35; S2: calculating displacement discontinuity quantities D of an artificial fractures based on a displacement discontinuity method; S3: calculating induced stress Δσ a 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 (DOM), 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, DOM 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 width or fracture opening:
PNG
media_image6.png
144
646
media_image6.png
Greyscale
S3: calculating induced stress l:ia 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 DOM (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_image7.png
248
675
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yuwei and Jizhou are considered to be analogous to, the claimed invention because they focus on computing of hydraulic fracture height. Therefore, it would be obvious to try by 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 into Yuwei model of calculating a hydraulic fracture height using mathematical model and compute stress intensity factors in order to judging whether the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r are greater than a fracture toughness at the fracture tip and if not it will continue computing stress intensity factors to improve fracture height prediction accuracy of multi-layer formation.
The motivation would by analyzing the factors that increase hydraulic fracturing as Yuwei teach, and it improve the fracture height prediction compared to other models using a mathematical model and 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).
The modified model of Yuwei- Jizhou does not explicitly teach S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, wherein the parameters, a shear modulus of 20 to 50 GPa, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.17 to 0.35.
While Han teaches S1: acquiring parameters of geology, rock mechanics, and artificial fracture from a dense sandstone gas reservoir, wherein the parameters, a shear modulus of 20 to 50 GPa, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.17 to 0.35 (section 4.1,
PNG
media_image8.png
302
1063
media_image8.png
Greyscale
) elastic modulus is mapped with shear modulus in the range.
Han is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, since it focus on rock mechanic parameters for hydraulic fracturing. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Han rock mechanics parameters including elastic modulus and Poisson ration in to the modified model in order to compute the fracture height in multi-layer formation.
The motivation would have been since evaluation of in situ stress distribution and rock mechanics parameters of fractured well is prerequisite for optimal fracture design, so it would be obvious to try to use those parameters as input in a known hydraulic fracturing height to improve fracture height model for improved fracture height prediction. (Han, abstract, section 2-3).
As of claim 2 the combined model of Yuwei, Jizhou and Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and, Yuwei also teaches wherein in the step 56, the stress intensity factors K'r+ and K'r- at an upper tip and a lower tip of the n+ 1th fracture are defined by the following equation:
PNG
media_image9.png
829
1241
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Section 1 and 2.1, page 186 -187, When the influence of the plastic zone at the fracture tip is not considered (the blue area in Fig. 3), referring to Liu et
al.[24- 25] model, the stress intensity factors at the upper and lower ends of the fracture can be expressed as:
PNG
media_image10.png
295
656
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
247
675
media_image11.png
Greyscale
). Based on the above equations it will be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art to simplify and modify in order to get the claimed equation based on the modified of claim 1.
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.
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 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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights