DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. This office action is in response to submission of application on 04-OCT-2022 . 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-15 are 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. Claims 1 and 9 both recite the limitations “determining a prediction for a discrete natural fracture network for the field, including predicting fracture geometries, orientations, and distributions for the group of wells; generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for the field based on 3D grid properties of the field and the discrete natural fracture network;” . These limitations both incorporate a “discrete natural fracture network”. The term “discrete fracture network” (DFN) is a known term in the art. The term “natural fracture” is a known term in the art. The natural fracture is the fractures that are present in the rock prior to any method that induces fractures into the rock. A person of ordinary skill in the art could easily recognize a DFN could be made of only natural fracture elements. The claim then recites “generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model” based on 3D grid properties of the field and the discrete natural fracture network. It is unclear if this 3D geomechanics model is a DFN, which is the predicted induced fractures and the discrete natural fracture network or if the 3D geomechanics model is a different type. [0046] [0051] [0052] of the specification as published discuss the “ discrete natural fracture network ” , but is unclear how it is incorporated into the 3D geomechanics model or what the 3D geomechanics model encompasses. For purposes of Examination, the claims have been given the plain meaning as presented and the “discrete natural fracture network” is merely incorporated in the 3D geomechanics model. All dependent claims (2-8 and 10-15) inherent the deficiencies of the independent claim. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of the independent. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process) Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.” Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.” 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).” 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” determining a prediction for a discrete natural fracture network for the field, including predicting fracture geometries, orientations, and distributions for the group of wells; Determining a prediction of the recited elements is an observation of those elements and then an evaluation or judgement of how the discrete natural fracture network would be presented. generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for the field based on 3D grid properties of the field and the discrete natural fracture network; Incorporating the 3D grid properties and the discrete natural fracture network, the product of the previous limitation’s evaluation, a new 3D geomechanics model is determined based on an observation of the elements and an evaluation or judgement of how a 3D model is produced. conducting 3D hydraulic fracturing modeling for fracturing a single well in the field to obtain an optimum pump schedule for a target fracture length and well spacing for placing numerous horizontal wells in the field; The determination of an optimum pump schedule is an estimation or judgment of how to produce the target fracture length and well spacing. The pump schedule is adjusted continuously until the target length and well spacing is observed. conducting 3D hydraulic fracturing modeling for the group of wells based on a drilling-fracturing sequence configured to generate symmetric fractures and to determine an optimum pump schedule for middle wells in the group of wells considering tensile stress superposition, wherein the drilling-fracturing sequence includes initially skipping fracturing of a drilled well adjacent to a fractured well; and The optimum pump schedule for middle wells in the group is based on an evaluation of the stress observed from fracturing the neighboring wells. Therefore, the claim recites a mental process. Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution? MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation: estimating, using collected data and results from mini-fracking tests on previous wells, geomechanical properties for a well in a group of wells in a field, including in-situ stresses and maximum horizontal stress direction for the field; Post solution activity: drilling and fracturing the group of wells using the drilling-fracturing sequence. MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea . Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and a general purpose computer do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The claim is ineligible . 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting data for the well, including collecting drilling reports, well surveys, formation tops, and wells logs. The elements recited are all collected prior to performing the model. MPEP 2106.05(g). 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: performing image log processing for natural fracture orientations, fracture intensity, and for maximum horizontal stress orientation for the field. Image log processing is data collected from a well log and imported into the model. MPEP 2106.05(g) 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the 3D hydraulic fracturing modeling considers an injection volume for the single well. The injection volume is evaluated based on the observed model. Step 2A Prong 1. 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a fracturing order for the group of wells is different from a well numbering for the group of wells. The rearrangement of the fracturing order is based on an observation of the model and an evaluation/opinion of the correct order. Step 2A Prong 1. 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein an injection fluid volume for a middle well drilled last in a pad is reduced by a variable α. Reducing the volume amount by a variable is a judgement or opinion. Step 2A Prong 1. 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the variable α is a percentage reduction of the injection fluid volume for a first well from a pad. Converting the variable to a percentage is an evaluation or mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong 1. 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the injection fluid volume for a last well in the pad is given by (1−α)V, wherein α is a value in a range of 0.1 to 0.3, and wherein V is a volume of injection fluid for the first well in the pad. Reducing the amount by effectively a percentage presented as a decimal is an evaluation or mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong 1. Claims 9-15 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis . The additional components of “ one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising ” are interpreted as a general purpose computer and mere instructions to apply. MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al., “A New Perspective on Multistage Stimulation of Multiple Horizontal Wells” [2016] (hereinafter ‘Xia’) in view of Maxwell , United State Patent 10,352,145 B2 (hereinafter ‘ Maxwell ’) in view of Haimson, “A Simple Method for Estimating In Situ Stresses at Great Depths” [1974] (hereinafter ‘Haimson’) . Regarding Claim 1: A computer-implemented method, comprising: right 74295 0 0 Xia teaches generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for the field based on 3D grid properties of the field … ( Figs. 6-7 and Pg. 2 left col last paragraph Xia “…For multiple horizontal wells in a pad, well placements hydraulic fracturing sequences, well spacing and injection volume should be optimized. Integrating these factors into a better sequence, timing and location of the events (fractures) should help to maximize the production rate in the near future. We achieve this through advanced hydraulic fracturing modeling using finite element modeling and a newly developed hydraulic fracturing simulator FrackOptima [10,11]. The unique feature of FrackOptima is its non-planar 3D fracture simulation capability…”) Xia teaches conducting 3D hydraulic fracturing modeling for fracturing a single well in the field to obtain an optimum pump schedule for a target fracture length and well spacing for placing numerous horizontal wells in the field; (Pg. 3 right col 1 st paragraph Xia “…The strong tensile stress superposition is likely to drive the existing fractures from adjacent wells propagating further. This additional fracture growth should be taken into account for determining well spacing and pump schedule…” Pg. 6 right col 2 nd paragraph Xia “ …. We first predict the hydraulic fracture length, S, using a single well hydraulic fracturing model. This fracture length will be used as baseline to define the well spacing for the multiple horizontal wells…”) right 12065 0 0 Xia teaches conducting 3D hydraulic fracturing modeling for the group of wells based on a drilling-fracturing sequence configured to generate symmetric fractures and to determine an optimum pump schedule for middle wells in the group of wells considering tensile stress superposition, wherein the drilling-fracturing sequence includes initially skipping fracturing of a drilled well adjacent to a fractured well; and (Pg. 6 left col last paragraph Xia “…To achieve this, we take the alternative fracturing sequence for multiple wells drilled from a pad as shown in Figure 11, which can be used to generate symmetric fractures and also take advantage of the tensile stress superposition effect. This alternative fracturing sequence will be executed following the similar pattern in the whole field scale assuming many wells are drilled from pads. In other words, after every alternating well is fractured, the wells between the fractured wells are fractured…”) Xia does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a prediction for a discrete natural fracture network for the field, including predicting fracture geometries, orientations, and distributions for the group of wells; generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for … and the discrete natural fracture network; drilling and fracturing the group of wells using the drilling-fracturing sequence. However, Maxwell teaches determining a prediction for a discrete natural fracture network for the field, including predicting fracture geometries, orientations, and distributions for the group of wells; (Col 52 lines 33-41 Maxwell “…In another aspect, the present disclosure relates to a method for using microseismic data to calibrate the initial discrete natural fracture network (DFN). The calibrated DFN model may be utilized as input for the complex hydraulic fracture network (HFN) model to simulate the fracture propagation during a fracture treatment. The calibrated DFN provides an accurate description of the reservoir and consequently a more accurate prediction of the created fracture geometry by the HFN simulator…” Col 30 lines 9-19 Maxwell “…Predicting fracture geometry 2354 may be performed, for example, by 2360 modeling fractures, such as natural, hydraulic, and/or complex fractures, based on the wellsite data, and 2362 generating a discrete fracture network from wellsite data. The hydraulic fracture geometry may first be computed using a hydraulic fracture model based on known geological, geomechanical and fracture treatment data. In the case of complex fractures in a naturally fractured formation, the model can be used to predict the complex fracture planes, as well as the fracture width, fluid pressure and other parameters associated with the fracture system…” Col 29 lines 51-56 Maxwell “…Additionally, from the computed stress field, the natural fractures that undergo slippage and their orientation can be determined, which can be compared to the slip orientation determined from the microseismic moment tensor to obtain more reliable interpretation…” Col 29 lines 38-41 Maxwell “…Attempts to provide a match may be made by changing rock properties and/or initial natural fracture distribution to try to match the microseismic 40 events 2238…”) Maxwell teaches generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for … and the discrete natural fracture network; ( Col 33 lines 7-29 Maxwell “…FIG. 23.2 provides another method 2300.2 of performing a fracture operation. In this version, the method involves 2350 performing a stimulation operation comprising stimulating the wellsite by injecting an injection fluid with proppant into the fracture network and 2352 generating wellsite data ( e.g. natural fracture parameters of the natural fractures, pump data, and microseismic measurements) as in FIG. 23.1. The method 2300.2 also involves 2375 modeling hydraulic fractures of the fracture network based on the wellsite data and defining a hydraulic fracture geometry of the hydraulic fractures, 2377 generating a stress field of the hydraulic fractures using a geomechanical model (e.g., 2D or 3D DDM), 2379 determining shear failure parameters comprising failure envelope and a stress state about the fracture network ( e.g., along the natural fractures, hydraulic fractures, and/or rock medium), 2381 determining a location of shear failure of the fracture network from the failure envelope and the stress state, 2383 calibrating the hydraulic fracture geometry by comparing the microseismic measurements with the simulated hydraulic fracture network and/or the activated discrete fracture network, 2385 adjusting the discrete fracture network based on the comparing, and 2387 adjusting the stimulation operation based on the comparing…”) Maxwell teaches drilling and fracturing the group of wells using the drilling-fracturing sequence . (Col 37 lines 1-11 Maxwell “…The wellbore may be drilled according to a drilling plan that is established prior to drilling. The drilling plan may set forth equipment, pressures, trajectories and/or other parameters that define the drilling process for the wellsite. The drilling operation may then be performed according to the drilling plan. However, as information is gathered, the drilling operation may to deviate from the drilling plan. Additionally, as drilling or other operations are performed, the subsurface conditions may change. The earth model may also provide adjustment as new information is collected…”) Xia and Maxwell are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, wellbore analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for the field based on 3D grid properties of the field as disclosed by Xia by determining a prediction for a discrete natural fracture network for the field, including predicting fracture geometries, orientations, and distributions for the group of wells and generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for … and the discrete natural fracture network and drilling and fracturing the group of wells using the drilling-fracturing sequence as disclosed by Maxwell . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to understand natural fractures found in the formation while modeling for hydraulic fracturing as discussed in Col 1 lines 39-54 of Maxwell “…In order to facilitate the recovery of hydrocarbons from oil and gas wells, the subterranean formations surrounding such wells can be hydraulically fractured. Hydraulic fracturing may be used to create cracks in subsurface formations to allow oil or gas to move toward the well. A formation is fractured by introducing a specially engineered fluid (referred to as "fracturing fluid" or "fracturing slurry" herein) at high pressure and high flow rates into the formation through one or more wellbores. Hydraulic fractures may extend away from the wellbore hundreds of feet in two opposing directions according to the natural stresses within the formation. Under certain circumstances, they may form a complex fracture network. Complex fracture networks can include induced hydraulic fractures and natural fractures, which may or may not intersect, along multiple azimuths, in multiple planes and directions, and in multiple regions…” Xia and Maxwell do not appear to explicitly disclose estimating, using collected data and results from mini-fracking tests on previous wells, geomechanical properties for a well in a group of wells in a field, including in-situ stresses and maximum horizontal stress direction for the field; However, Haimson teaches estimating, using collected data and results from mini-fracking tests on previous wells, geomechanical properties for a well in a group of wells in a field, including in-situ stresses and maximum horizontal stress direction for the field; (Abstract Haimson “…The method itself consists of pressurizing a sealed-off interval of the tested borehole until fracture occurs. Additional pumping is then undertaken to open and extend the fracture. After the pressure is released, an "impression packer" is used to obtain an oriented imprint of the hole showing the inclination and azimuth of the hydraulic fracture. Using the recorded fracturing pressures and the fracture impression, the principal stresses and their directions are calculated. Laboratory experimental work has confirmed most of the theoretical assumptions and results. Stresses calculated from field hydraulic fracturing tests have demonstrated the great potential of the method. In particular, a hydraulic fracturing test was conducted at 6280 ft (1915 m) below the surface at Rangely, Colo. The in situ stresses as determined by the method were in accord with the expected condition for the type and the slip direction of an existing fault, and were used to predict the critical pore pressure necessary to trigger local earthquakes. Following the successful experiment, more field tests have been planned…” Pg. 158 3 rd paragraph Haimson “…It is assumed that the rock is brittle, linearly elastic, homogeneous, isotropic, and porous, and that the fluid flow through the pores obeys Darcy's law. It is also assumed that one of the principal in situ effective stresses (σ zz ) acts in a direction parallel with the axis of the borehole to be tested. Consequently, the other two (σ xx , σ yy ) are in a plane normal to the borehole…” Pg. 160 2 nd paragraph Haimson “… Equations 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 provide unique solutions to the principal stresses σ xx and σ yy . In vertical boreholes the third principal stresses σ zz ) can be estimated from the weight of the underlying rock…”) Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, wellbore analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for the field based on 3D grid properties of the field and the discrete natural fracture network as disclosed by Xia and Maxwell by estimating, using collected data and results from mini-fracking tests on previous wells, geomechanical properties for a well in a group of wells in a field, including in-situ stresses and maximum horizontal stress direction for the field as disclosed by Haimson . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better improve the estimation of the stresses as discussed on pg. 180 last paragraph – 181 1 st paragraph of Haimson “…Hydraulic fracturing is a simple method of estimating stresses in hard rock at any depth accessible to a borehole. The theory behind this technique is well established, and the tools necessary to take measurements are readily available. The extensive laboratory research effort thus far undertaken has clearly shown that the method is particularly sensitive to in situ stresses and rather insensitive to rock properties. However, for best estimates of a1111 magnitude property testing of rocks subjected to hydraulic fracturing is recommended. The limited field testing carried out to date has been successful and encouraging. In unbroken rock vertical fractures have been obtained almost exclusively, and indications are that broken rock can be lined to yield the same results. A weakness of the method has been its inability to detect fracture orientation away from the borehole. But even in the cases where the possibility exists that the fracture changed directions while extending, the amount of information gained from a hydraulic fracturing test is generous and will often justify the expenses incurred. Specifically hydraulic fracturing can be used at depths and under in situ stress conditions where no other method is available. The success of the Rangely test is amplified when one considers that this was probably the first attempt to determine from the surface in situ stress conditions more than one mile deep…” Regarding Claim 3: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: Maxwell teaches performing image log processing for natural fracture orientations, fracture intensity, and for maximum horizontal stress orientation for the field. (Col 45 lines 7-13 Maxwell “…Locations of microseismicity may be used to constrain the fracture network. For a specific stress state, complex hydraulic fracture networks can be modeled for a given discrete fracture network (DFN) of preexisting fractures. The DFN may be adjusted to match the observed extent of the microseismicity. A DFN can be constructed using formation image logs and seismically derived fractures…”) Regarding Claim 4: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, right 6350 0 0 Xia teaches wherein the 3D hydraulic fracturing modeling considers an injection volume for the single well. (Pg. 5 right col 1 st -2 nd paragraph Xia “…Additional fracture growth of the phase I generated fractures can be observed and it is due to the same reason as mentioned above. The result further confirms the phenomena as observed in Figure 7 and Figure 8. As evidenced in the above hydraulic fracturing simulations for multistage stimulation of multiple wells, the tensile stress superposition exists in certain regions and can be used to generate additional fracture growth, which should be accounted for optimizing the volume of injection fluid. If the fracture length is designed based on the hydraulic fracturing simulation of a single well, the actual well spacing for multiple wells should be larger than the fracture length determined by single well simulation. Doing this not only can avoid fractures communicating issue, also it can effectively apply the same amount of fluid to generate a relatively longer fracture…”) Regarding Claim 5: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, Xia teaches wherein a fracturing order for the group of wells is different from a well numbering for the group of wells. (Pg. 6 right col 2 nd paragraph Xia “…Then we use same pump schedule to stimulate the three wells with well spacing equal to S. The alternative fracturing sequence is well #1→well #3→well #2, which is targeted to create symmetric fracture geometry relative to each wellbore. Figure 12 shows the fracture geometries after well #1 and well #3 are fractured…”) Regarding Claim 6: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, Xia teaches right 13335 0 0 wherein an injection fluid volume for a middle well drilled last in a pad is reduced by a variable α. (Pg. 6 left col last paragraph Xia “…A pump schedule with injection fluid volume V of 510m3 for well spacing 200m is obtained, which can generate the half fracture length equal to 100m (see Figure 16). The results are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. For this comparison study, the middle wells for both methods are injected with 67% of the injection fluid volume V used for the two side wells…”) Regarding Claim 7: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 6, Xia teaches wherein the variable α is a percentage reduction of the injection fluid volume for a first well from a pad. (Pg. 6 left col last paragraph Xia “…A pump schedule with injection fluid volume V of 510m3 for well spacing 200m is obtained, which can generate the half fracture length equal to 100m (see Figure 16). The results are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. For this comparison study, the middle wells for both methods are injected with 67% of the injection fluid volume V used for the two side wells…”) Regarding Claim 8: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 7, Xia teaches wherein the injection fluid volume for a last well in the pad is given by (1−α)V, wherein α is a value in a range of 0.1 to 0.3, and wherein V is a volume of injection fluid for the first well in the pad. (Pg. 6 right col last paragraph Xia “…As an alternative method to reduce well completion cost, the injection volume for the alternating wells in the field wide can be reduced by 33% if we keep the well spacing same as predicted by single well. Figure 15 shows the fracture initiated from middle wells are just connected with the preexisting fractures initiated from well #1 and well #3 when the middle well is injected with 67% of the pump schedule used for the two side wells. Therefore the cost reduction can be achieved through two approaches: (1) if the pump schedule is determined and used as same for all three wells, the well spacing can be increased; (2) or reduce the injection volume for the every other well if the well spacing is kept same as the one determined by hydraulic fracturing modeling of single well…”) Claims 9 and 11 -15 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1 and 3 -7, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as Claims 1 and 3 -7, respectively, Mutatis mutandis . Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al., “A New Perspective on Multistage Stimulation of Multiple Horizontal Wells” [2016] (hereinafter ‘Xia’) in view of Maxwell, United State Patent 10,352,145 B2 (hereinafter ‘Maxwell’) in view of Haimson, “A Simple Method for Estimating In Situ Stresses at Great Depths” [1974] (hereinafter ‘Haimson’) further in view of Castineira et al., “Augmented AI Solutions for Heavy Oil Reservoirs: Innovative Workflows That Build from Smart Analytics, Machine Learning And Expert-Based Systems” [2018] (hereinafter ‘Castineira’) . Regarding Claim 2: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson do not appear to explicitly disclose collecting data for the well, including collecting drilling reports, well surveys, formation tops, and wells logs. However, Castineira teaches collecting data for the well, including collecting drilling reports, well surveys, formation tops, and wells logs. (Pg. 3 1 st paragraph Castineira “…The framework requires inter-disciplinary field data including well surveys, logs, formation tops, completion and perforation data, production data, fluid contacts data, and geologic models to list a few…” Pg. 2 2 nd paragraph Castineira “…As an example, analyzing large volumes of unstructured D&C (drilling and completion) data requires a great deal of time and resources, so advanced analytics and automation are needed to process and analyze large sets of data collected before, during and after drilling operations (such as daily drilling reports, geology, mud and bit information, production and geomechanical data, etc.)…”) Xia, Maxwell, Haimson, and Castineira are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, wellbore analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the generating a three-dimensional (3D) geomechanics model for the field based on 3D grid properties of the field and the discrete natural fracture network as disclosed by Xia, Maxwell, and Haimson by collecting data for the well, including collecting drilling reports, well surveys, formation tops, and wells logs as disclosed by Castineira . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the analysis of the reservoir as discussed in the abstract of Castineira “…We built an integrated view of the reservoir through a series of smart metrics and KPIs. This was accomplished by integrating expert-based knowledge with the analysis of geological data, reservoir behavior and production and operational performance. Our analytics-based solutions were designed from the perspective of reservoir management, and consequently, they could assimilate production and cost/economic analysis with geological information (e.g., well logs and/or existing geological models) and reservoir performance (metrics for pressure, voidage, fractional flow, reservoir contact, etc.). From here, KROs (key recovery obstacles) were identified for this heavy oil field, and robust field development opportunities (i.e., behind-pipe opportunities and/or new well targets) were methodically proposed based on an innovative saturation mapping approach…” Claims 10 is a system claim, containing substantially the same elements as method Claim 2 , respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as Claim 2 , respectively, Mutatis mutandis . Conclusion Claims 1-15 are rejected. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Einstein et al., “Complete laboratory experimentation on hydraulic fracturing” [2018] – Reference discloses the term “mini-frac”, but does not teach the technique referring back to Haimson. Pg. 18 1 st paragraph. “Alternatively, or in addition, hydraulic fracturing often called mini-fracking is used to determine the stress field. This technique (see e.g. Fairhurst, 1964; Haimson, 1978) has been and is being also extensively used in civil and mining engineering.” Hoeink, US 2017/0175507 A1 – Reference discusses how incorporating a discrete natural fracture network is so well-known that further details are not discussed in the reference. [0013] “Networks of natural fractures are important contributors for fluid flow in the subsurface, and crucial in most remaining hydrocarbon reserves. However, in any realistic situation the actual physical attributes of each fracture are never known precisely. A typically used crutch employs the concept of a discrete natural fracture network (DFN), which is a discrete realization of a large number of possible realizations (ensemble) that all have the same stochastic description. Much work in the industry is focused on creating and analyzing a single (or a few at most) of those DFN's, disregarding the majority of possible realizations in the ensemble. Then, results from these singular efforts contribute to important and capital-expensive decisions. A DFN may be obtained from analysis of formation core samples and borehole logging images and sensed data such as resistivity images, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) images and gamma-ray data as non-limiting examples. Fracture densities, orientations and aperture distances may be extrapolated further into the formation from a borehole were the data was obtained. In that DFNs are known in the art, they are not discussed in further detail.” Lei et al., “Modelling fluid injection-induced fracture activation, damage growth, seismicity occurrence and connectivity change in naturally fractured rocks” [202 1 ] – Reference teaches the general concept of how natural fracture rocks and fluid injection-induced fractures are model together. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8062 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9AM-3PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Emerson Puente can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712723652 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHN E JOHANSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187