DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al. (US 2008/0105032) in view of Gupa et al. (US 10280737).
Reddy et al. discloses a sample composition comprising:
crude oil produced from a hydrocarbon reservoir (Abstract: Obtaining a hydrocarbon sample),
an oil-based mud (OBM) filtrate (Abstract: Oil based mud filtrate in a hydrocarbon sample); and
a tracer (Abstract: Identifying one or more unique component or tracer in the oil based mud filtrate in the hydrocarbon sample).
Reddy et al. however does not teach wherein the tracer is selected from the group consisting of: a plurality of quantum dots; a plurality of nanoparticles; a dye selected from the group consisting of naphthalene-based dyes, aniline- based dyes, nitrobenzene-based dyes, aminophenol-based dyes, azo- red-based dyes, heavy solvent naphthas, yellows dyes, orange dyes, and green dyes; and combinations of these tracers.
Gupta et al. teaches that carbon quantum dots are used as tracers during the production of hydrocarbons to identify fluid produced from a reservoir (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reddy’s method to use carbon quantum dots as tracers during the production of hydrocarbons to enhance the productivity of hydrocarbon-containing fluids from the subterranean formations as taught by Gupta et al. (column 1, lines 10-17).
Regarding to claim 14: where the sample has an absorbance spectrum that oscillates between about 100 to about 2000 nm (Reddy et al.: paragraph [0012]: The wavelength range of the downhole fluid sample is 600-1800nm).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 10, 12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio et al. (US 2007/0120051) in view of Reddy et al. (US 2008/0105032), and further in view of Gupa et al. (US 10280737).
Regarding to claim 1:
DiFoggio discloses a method for determining whether crude oil has been produced from a hydrocarbon reservoir wellbore that has been drilled using a mud, the method comprising
providing the mud characterized in that the mud comprises a tracer; filtering the mud to obtain a mud filtrate comprising the tracer (paragraph [0029]: one or more known chemical or tracers may be introduced into the drilling fluid);
determining a baseline absorbance value for the mud filtrate containing the tracer (paragraph [0029]: such known tracers have high absorbance compared to the elements of the connate fluid);
determining a baseline absorbance value for the crude oil (paragraph [0037]: An absorbance spectrum for a particular grade (31.7 API) of crude oil);
introducing the mud filtrate into a hydrocarbon reservoir wellbore; conducting a wellbore operation with the mud (paragraph [0005]: A drilling fluid, also referred to as mud, is supplied under pressure to drill the wellbores);
producing a sample from the well (paragraph [0006]: After the wellbores have been drilled, samples of the fluid is obtained);
measuring a measured absorbance value of the sample, and comparing the measured absorbance value with the baseline absorbance values for the mud filtrate and the baseline absorbance value for the crude oil to determine whether crude oil is present in the sample (paragraph [0028]: The processor compares the absorbance values to estimate the amounts and location of the various elements present in the fluid).
DiFoggio however is silent wherein the mud is oil-based mud (OBM).
Reddy et al. discloses a method of drilling a wellbore in a hydrocarbon reservoir using oil-based muds (OBM) as drilling fluids because of the rapid drilling rates and increased hole stability to obtain a sample containing the mud filtrate (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to modify DiFoggio’s method to use an oil-based mud as the drilling fluid in the wellbore drilling to obtain the rapid drilling rates and increase the hole stability as taught by Reddy et al. (paragraph [0004]).
DiFoggio also does not teach wherein the tracer is selected from the group consisting of: a plurality of quantum dots; a plurality of nanoparticles; a dye selected from the group consisting of naphthalene-based dyes, aniline- based dyes, nitrobenzene-based dyes, aminophenol-based dyes, azo- red-based dyes, heavy solvent naphthas, yellows dyes, orange dyes, and green dyes; and combinations of these tracers.
Gupta et al. teaches that carbon quantum dots are used as tracers during the production of hydrocarbons to identify fluid produced from a reservoir (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reddy’s method to use carbon quantum dots as tracers during the production of hydrocarbons to enhance the productivity of hydrocarbon-containing fluids from the subterranean formations as taught by Gupta et al. (column 1, lines 10-17).
Regarding to claims 10 and 12: a sample composition comprising crude oil produced from a hydrocarbon reservoir (Reddy et al.: Abstract: Obtaining a hydrocarbon sample), an oil-based mud (OBM) filtrate (Reddy et al.: Abstract: Oil based mud filtrate in a hydrocarbon sample); and a tracer (Reddy et al.: Abstract: Identifying one or more unique component or tracer in the oil based mud filtrate in the hydrocarbon sample).
Regarding to claims 3 and 14: where the sample has an absorbance spectrum that oscillates between about 100 to about 2000 nm. (Reddy et al.: The wavelength range of the downhole fluid sample is 600-1800nm. DiFoggio et al.: FIG. 5 shows the absorbance spectrum is in the range 400-2000nm).
Regarding to claims 4, 15: where the crude oil is light crude oil having an API density of 30 API or higher (DiFoggio et al.: paragraph [0037]: An absorbance spectrum for a particular grade (31.7 API) of crude oil).
Regarding to claims 6 and 17: where the proportion of tracer in the OBM ranges from about 0.01 vol% to about 2.5 vol% of the OBM (Reddy et al. even though teaches the OBM comprising tracers, is silent on the proportion of the tracers in the OBM in the range as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the amount of the tracers in the OBM in the range as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights