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 Schimmel et al. (CN 114616382).
Regarding to claims 10 and 12:
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 comprises 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.
Schimmel et al. teaches an injection fluid introduced into wells and underground formation by drilling, wherein the injection fluid comprises a plurality of tracers (page 1, 3rd paragraph), wherein fluorescent dyes, such as naphthalene, are used for providing unique tracers (page 7, last paragraph and page 8, 1st paragraph).
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 tracer to use fluorescent dyes, such as naphthalene, as disclosed by Schimmel et al. to provide a novel tracer that can be reliable and accurate in the determination the physical and chemical of the medium (page 1, last paragraph).
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 Schimmel et al. (CN 114616382).).
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 comprises a chromophore dye selected from the group consisting of naphthalene-based dyes, aniline- based dyes, nitrobenzene-based dyes, aminophenol-based dyes, and azo- red-based dyes.
Schimmel et al. teaches an injection fluid introduced into wells and underground formation by drilling, wherein the injection fluid comprises a plurality of tracers (page 1, 3rd paragraph), wherein fluorescent dyes, such as naphthalene, are used for providing unique tracers (page 7, last paragraph and page 8, 1st paragraph).
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 tracer to use fluorescent dyes, such as naphthalene, as disclosed by Schimmel et al. to provide a novel tracer that can be reliable and accurate in the determination the physical and chemical of the medium (page 1, last paragraph).
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
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