DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 6/8/2026. Claims 1-8 are 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- Drawings/ Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments- - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered and are persuasive. However the amendments warrant new rejections. See below.
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein in first information comprises length and diameter” but does not recite what the length and diameter are referring to. Similarly, viscosity is recited but it is unclear what the viscosity is referring to.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 1 recites “calculating a pressure drop distribution based on the static pressure and flow pressure using a simulator”. However it is unclear what relationship this limitation has to the remainder of the claim and appears to be a “standalone” limitation. It is unknown what the purpose of the limitation is. There appears to be omitted steps linking the limitation to the remainder of the claim language.
Claim 1 recites “calculating a length of a wash pipe tool based on the length and diameter of the horizontal well” and then “inserting the wash pipe tool into the horizontal well”. It is unclear what the purpose of calculating the length would be prior to inserting the wash pipe tool. There appears to be a missing step wherein a particular wash pipe tool is created according to the calculated length.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-8, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims a method. As such this claim falls within the statutory category of process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method for uniformization of flow for stimulation operations, the method comprising:
obtaining first information from a horizontal well in a reservoir, wherein the first information comprises length and diameter, viscosity, and API grade of oil;
obtaining second information from the reservoir, wherein the second information comprises static pressure and flow pressure;
calculating a pressure drop distribution based on the static pressure and flow pressure using a simulator (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
calculating a length of a wash pipe tool based on the length and diameter of the horizontal well (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
inserting the wash pipe tool into the horizontal well, wherein the wash pipe tool comprises divergent perforations configured to uniformly distribute a fluid along the length of the horizontal well; and
stimulating the reservoir with the fluid using the wash pipe tool.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity an result-oriented “apply it” language. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “obtaining first information from a horizontal well in a reservoir, wherein the first information comprises length and diameter, viscosity, and API grade of oil” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.0S(g)), “obtaining second information from the reservoir, wherein the second information comprises static pressure and flow pressure” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.0S(g)), “inserting the wash pipe tool into the horizontal well, wherein the wash pipe tool comprises divergent perforations configured to uniformly distribute a fluid along the length of the horizontal well” (result-oriented "apply it" language MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)), “stimulating the reservoir with the fluid using the wash pipe tool” (result-oriented "apply it" language MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering and result-oriented “apply it” language. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “obtaining first information from a horizontal well in a reservoir, wherein the first information comprises length and diameter, viscosity, and API grade of oil” and “obtaining second information from the reservoir, wherein the second information comprises static pressure and flow pressure” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-8.
Claims 2-8 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are overcome.
Fermaniuk, Cavender and Gomaa teach a method for uniformization of flow for stimulation operations. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim )
“obtaining first information from a horizontal well in a reservoir, wherein the first information comprises length and diameter, viscosity, and API grade of oil;
obtaining second information from the reservoir, wherein the second information comprises static pressure and flow pressure;
calculating a pressure drop distribution based on the static pressure and flow pressure using a simulator;
calculating a length of a wash pipe tool based on the length and diameter of the horizontal well;
inserting the wash pipe tool into the horizontal well, wherein the wash pipe tool comprises divergent perforations configured to uniformly distribute a fluid along the length of the horizontal well; and
stimulating the reservoir with the fluid using the wash pipe tool”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights