DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 11/9/2022. 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Figures contain text and drawings which are blurry and difficult to read (see in particular Figures 2-6). See 37 CFR § 1.84 (p)(3) - Standards for drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is directed towards 37 CFR § 1.84 - Standards for drawings:
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preambles of all claims use all capitalized letters; all text should begin with a capitalized letter, followed by lowercase letters. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following is to be considered exemplary of the issues at hand. Applicant is encouraged to thoroughly review the claim language prior to response.
Regarding claims 1-8, the claims recite “A/The method…characterized in that it: uses/performs/calculates…” etc. It is unclear who or what is performing the various method steps for claims 1-8. It is strongly recommended that the claims be amended to read, for example, as “A method for…wherein the method comprises…” Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 1, line 3, “the horizontal well” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recites “information such as: length and diameter, viscosity and API grade of oil”. It is unclear if the information is required by the claim. The claim should be rewritten as “information comprising length and diameter, viscosity or API grade of oil”.
Claim 1, line 5, “the reservoir” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 5-6 recites “information such as: statis pressure and flow pressure”. It is unclear if the information is required by the claim. The claim should be rewritten as information comprising statis pressure or flow pressure”.
Claim 1, line 7, “the wash pipe tool” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 1, line 9, “the well completion” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 2, line 3, “the length” and “the string” lack antecedent support.
Claim 2, line 4, “the well” was previously “the horizontal well”. Consistency in terminology is required.
Claim 3, line 3, “the simulator” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 3, line 4, “the pressure drop distribution” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 3, line 5, “the flow uniformization” was previously “uniformization of flow”. Consistency in terminology is required.
Claim 3, line 5, “the acid injection” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 4, line 4, “the horizontal length” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, lines 3-4, “the oil well” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 8 recites “DTPA (ethylene triaminopentacetic acid)”. However, DPTA stands for diethylenetriamineepentaacetic acid, not ethylene triaminopentacetic acid. It is unknown which compound is intended to be recited.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from independent claim 1.
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 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140326447 A1 (“Fermaniuk”) in view of US 20120218119 A1 (“Cavender”).
Regarding claim 1, Fermaniuk teaches:
A METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS, characterized in that it:
- uses information from the horizontal well, such as: length and diameter, viscosity and API grade of oil (Fermaniuk: para [0043], “FIG. 1 shows a section of pipe 100, which is generally cylindrical, having exterior surface 102 and interior surface 104. Between exterior surface 102 and the proximate interior surface 104 is wall 106. Pipe 100 may be of any length, diameter and thickness. An exemplary length for pipe 100 in a well bore is in the range of approximately 3 m long (approx. 9.8 feet) or less to approximately 15 m long (approx. 49.2 feet) or more. A plurality of perforations 108 are provided along the length of pipe 100, where the perforations are located on exterior surface 102 and extended through wall 106 to interior surface 104”);
- uses information from the reservoir, such as: static pressure and flow pressure (Fermaniuk: para [0050], “This may assist in controlling fluid velocity and flow rate to perforation 108 (known as skin factor due to flow convergence) and drag forces on particles within this near well bore region and further assists in reducing pressure drops that are generally associated with higher flow rates”; para [0062], “Pump and control module 412 may include a pump, a pressure intensifier and one or more tanks”);
- uses the pipe tool to stimulate the reservoir (Fermaniuk: para [0053], “Pipe 100 with conical perforations 108 may be advantageously used in sites for thermal exploitation projects, such as steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) projects and cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) projects as this will provide the necessary aperture openings for sand control and the open area for flow as well as strength for installation and thermal loading during steam injection and hot production operations of SAGD and CSS applications”);
- performs reservoir stimulation with the pipe tool with divergent perforation during the well completion (Fermaniuk: para [0055], “Shapes described herein for an embodiment may provide additional rigidity to pipe 100 and may assist with filtering properties, having regard to expected flow rates and materials being carried in pipe 100 at a given site. These shapes may provide beneficial flow characteristics to the slot/perforation or sand control. These shapes may have good divergent flow characteristics to the perforation and through the perforation”; para [0061], “As such, forming perforations 108 in pipe 100 provides a drilled hole in pipe 100, while retaining benefits of a seamed or keystone perforation, which provides sand control and anti-plugging characteristics to the perforation through larger ID aperture opening-to-OD aperture opening and divergent flow characteristics to the perforation”);
Fermaniuk does not teach but Cavender does teach:
- uses the wash pipe tool to stimulate the reservoir (Cavender: para [0005], “The liquid carrier either flows into the formation or returns to the surface by flowing through a wash pipe or both. In either case, the gravel is deposited around the sand control screen to form the gravel pack, which is highly permeable to the flow of hydrocarbon fluids but blocks the flow of the fine particulate materials carried in the hydrocarbon fluids. As such, gravel packs can successfully prevent the problems associated with the production of these particulate materials from the formation; para [0006], “it may be desirable to stimulate the formation by, for example, performing a formation fracturing and propping operation prior to or simultaneously with the gravel packing operation”);
- performs reservoir stimulation with the wash pipe tool (Cavender: para [0005], “The liquid carrier either flows into the formation or returns to the surface by flowing through a wash pipe or both. In either case, the gravel is deposited around the sand control screen to form the gravel pack, which is highly permeable to the flow of hydrocarbon fluids but blocks the flow of the fine particulate materials carried in the hydrocarbon fluids. As such, gravel packs can successfully prevent the problems associated with the production of these particulate materials from the formation; para [0006], “it may be desirable to stimulate the formation by, for example, performing a formation fracturing and propping operation prior to or simultaneously with the gravel packing operation”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Cavender (directed to a wash pipe tool) and arrived at reservoir stimulation using a wash pipe tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “it may be desirable to stimulate the formation by, for example, performing a formation fracturing and propping operation prior to or simultaneously with the gravel packing operation” (Cavender: para [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Fermaniuk does not teach but Cavender does teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claim 1, characterized in that it calculates the length of the string of wash pipes as a function of the length and diameter of the well (Cavender: para [0028], “ lowering pipe strings including a work string 30. Work string 30 is positioned within well 32 having casing 34 that has been secured within well 32 by cement 36. In the illustrated embodiment, work string 30 includes a sump packer 38, a gravel packing apparatus or sand screen 40 including a plurality of sensors 42 and a crossover assembly 44 including a gravel packer 46”; para [0037], “Even though FIG. 1 depicts three optical communication components disposed within wellbore 32 below sea floor 16, those skilled in the art will recognize that the number of optical communication components needed in a given installation will depend on factors including the length of the wellbore”; para [0029], “To help achieve this result, a wash pipe is disposed within gravel packing apparatus 40. The wash pipe extends into crossover assembly 44 such that return fluid passing through gravel packing apparatus 40 may travel through the wash pipe and into annulus 66 for return to the surface”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Cavender (directed to a wash pipe tool) and arrived at reservoir stimulation using a wash pipe tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “it may be desirable to stimulate the formation by, for example, performing a formation fracturing and propping operation prior to or simultaneously with the gravel packing operation” (Cavender: para [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Fermaniuk and Cavender teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claim 2, characterized in that the wash pipe tool is a perforated pipe, capable of promoting a uniform flow along the horizontal length of the well (Fermaniuk: para [0050], “Also, high open areas in pipe 100 may be manufactured without compromising comparable structural integrity of a liner as a lower open area perforated liner due to the overall structural strength difference between the conical perforation and the longitudinal perforation. This may assist in controlling fluid velocity and flow rate to perforation 108 (known as skin factor due to flow convergence) and drag forces on particles within this near well bore region and further assists in reducing pressure drops that are generally associated with higher flow rates”).
Claims 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140326447 A1 (“Fermaniuk”) in view of US 20120218119 A1 (“Cavender”) in view of US 20200270514 A1 (“Gomaa”).
Regarding claim 3, Fermaniuk and Cavender do not teach but Gomaa does teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claim 1, characterized in that, from the static pressure and flow pressure, it calculates, in the simulator, the pressure drop distribution that will be applied to generate the flow uniformization during the acid injection (Gomaa: para [0097], “the reduction of pressure drop (real time reading) of a treated zone indicates created fractures and successful stimulation or acid fracturing treatment. Diverter can be injected until pressure drop increases, which indicates temporary blockage of the treated zone. Upon indication of a temporary blockage, a first and second compositions can be injected one after another to treat a new zone or section of a well”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk and Cavender (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Gomaa (directed to pressure drop distribution) arrived at reservoir stimulation using pressure drop distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “there is a need for a stimulation, fracturing, and cleaning treatment that is not highly corrosive and damaging to pipes, tubing, and equipment, yet provides effective stimulation and cleaning of filter cakes and other obstructions” (Gomaa: para [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Fermaniuk and Cavender do not teach but Gomaa does teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claim 1, characterized in that it uses acids, solvents or scale removers to stimulate the oil well (Gomaa: para [0057], “properties of various organic acids allow fine-tuning of the combinations and ranges of concentrations over which inverse-reactivity relationship is achieved, and over which the acid compositions can be used for well stimulation, acid fracturing, and cleaning”; para [0073], “the second composition includes a carboxylic acid. In some embodiments, the carboxylic acid is a monocarboxylic acid. Examples of monocarboxylic acids include, but are not limited to, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric acid, caproic acid, lauric acid, and palmitic acid. In some embodiments, the carboxylic acid is a dicarboxylic acid”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk and Cavender (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Gomaa (directed to acids and solvents) arrived at reservoir stimulation using acids and solvents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “there is a need for a stimulation, fracturing, and cleaning treatment that is not highly corrosive and damaging to pipes, tubing, and equipment, yet provides effective stimulation and cleaning of filter cakes and other obstructions” (Gomaa: para [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Fermaniuk and Cavender do not teach but Gomaa does teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claims 1 and 5, characterized in that it uses hydrochloric acid or acetic acid or formic acid or mixtures thereof for acid stimulation (Gomaa: para [0057], “properties of various organic acids allow fine-tuning of the combinations and ranges of concentrations over which inverse-reactivity relationship is achieved, and over which the acid compositions can be used for well stimulation, acid fracturing, and cleaning”; para [0073], “the second composition includes a carboxylic acid. In some embodiments, the carboxylic acid is a monocarboxylic acid. Examples of monocarboxylic acids include, but are not limited to, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric acid, caproic acid, lauric acid, and palmitic acid. In some embodiments, the carboxylic acid is a dicarboxylic acid”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk and Cavender (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Gomaa (directed to acids and solvents) arrived at reservoir stimulation using acids and solvents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “there is a need for a stimulation, fracturing, and cleaning treatment that is not highly corrosive and damaging to pipes, tubing, and equipment, yet provides effective stimulation and cleaning of filter cakes and other obstructions” (Gomaa: para [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Fermaniuk and Cavender do not teach but Gomaa does teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claims 1 and 5, characterized in that it uses diesel or xylene or butyl-glycol or mixtures thereof as solvents (Gomaa: para [0024], “the first composition is an emulsion, and comprises a diesel fuel, mineral oil, crude oil, hydrocarbon, or an organic solvent”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk and Cavender (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Gomaa (directed to acids and solvents) arrived at reservoir stimulation using acids and solvents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “there is a need for a stimulation, fracturing, and cleaning treatment that is not highly corrosive and damaging to pipes, tubing, and equipment, yet provides effective stimulation and cleaning of filter cakes and other obstructions” (Gomaa: para [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Fermaniuk and Cavender do not teach but Gomaa does teach:
THE METHOD FOR UNIFORMIZATION OF FLOW FOR STIMULATION OPERATIONS according to claims 1 and 5, characterized in that it uses DTPA (ethylene triaminopentacetic acid) or EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) as scale removers (Gomaa: para [0053], “Exemplary organic acids can also include, but are not limited to, 1,2-cyclohexanediaminetetraacetic acid (CDTA), diethylenetriamineepentaacetic acid (DTPA), ethylenediamineteraacetic acid (EDTA), hydroxyaminocarboxylic acid (HACA), HEDTA (N-hydroxyethyl-ethylenediamine-triacetic acid), hydroxyethyleneiminodiacetate (HEIDA), N,N′-bis(carboxymethyl)glycine (NTA), tetraammonium EDTA, and derivatives and mixtures thereof”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fermaniuk and Cavender (directed to reservoir stimulation) and Gomaa (directed to acids and solvents) arrived at reservoir stimulation using acids and solvents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “there is a need for a stimulation, fracturing, and cleaning treatment that is not highly corrosive and damaging to pipes, tubing, and equipment, yet provides effective stimulation and cleaning of filter cakes and other obstructions” (Gomaa: para [0005]).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
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