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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment filed 08/07/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 are presented for examination.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The parenthetical “(ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid)” at paragraph [0025] accompanying “DTPA” appears to be a typographical error for “(diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid)”, the chemical name that DTPA denotes.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “determining, by the CFD simulation” in line which is unclear what the limitation “the CEF simulation” refers. Is it referring to “a computation fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator” cited in line 4 or “a flow simulation” cited in line 6?
As per Claim 8, it recites the parenthetical “(ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid)” accompanying “DTPA” appears to be a typographical error for “(diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid)”, the chemical name that DTPA denotes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landman (“Optimization of Perforation Distribution for Horizontal Wells”), in view of Richards (US 7469743 B2).
As per Claim 1, Landman teaches A horizontal well production method with uniform flow (pg. 1, Abstract, Introduction “
PNG
media_image2.png
75
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”; pg. 3 “
PNG
media_image3.png
70
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“: a horizontal-well production design method whose stated objective is uniform inflow along the well), the method comprising:
performing, using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator and horizontal well information comprising a length and diameter of a horizontal well, a flow simulation for a production string of the horizontal well, wherein the flow simulation simulates an area open to flow along a horizontal section of the horizontal well; (pg. 2 “
PNG
media_image4.png
267
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“; pg. 3 “
PNG
media_image5.png
363
415
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”; pg. 6: the coupled Darcy-inflow and pipe-flow model is solved numerically over the well length L and wellbore diameter D, the simulated inflow entering through the distributed perforations, i.e., the “area open to flow” as claimed, along the horizontal well; Examiner’s Note - the iteratively solved coupled reservoir-wellbore flow model of eqs. (5)-(12) corresponds to the recited “computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator”);
determining, by the CFD simulation, a spacing and number of holes along the production string of the horizontal well; (pg. 3-4 “ reduced in computational size by segmenting the perforated interval into J segments, each with I perforations (N=l/). i.e., the perforation density is piecewise constant over the intervals”; pg. 5 “
PNG
media_image6.png
121
401
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“: the output of the simulation is the number of perforations and their positions, and thus their spacing, along the well);
… wherein the divergent arrangement comprises a plurality of sections along a horizontal extension of the horizontal well having holes arranged according to the determined spacing and number of holes, (pg. 4, equations. (16)-(17); pg. 5 “
PNG
media_image7.png
187
419
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“: the well is divided into intervals, each interval carrying its determined number of perforations at the determined spacing);
wherein the holes are uniform in diameter, (pg. 2 “
PNG
media_image8.png
162
407
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“: all perforations share the same dimensions, and hence the same diameter; only their positions are varied);
and wherein at least the determined spacing and number of holes provide a decreasing pressure drop from a beginning of the horizontal extension of the horizontal well to a bottom of the horizontal well such that a contribution of each section of the divergent arrangement is equal along the horizontal extension (pg. 5 “
PNG
media_image9.png
135
422
media_image9.png
Greyscale
“; pg. 6, Conclusions “
PNG
media_image10.png
125
403
media_image10.png
Greyscale
”: the determined density is lowest at the downstream end of the well, the beginning of the horizontal extension where drawdown is greatest, and increases towards the upstream end, so the pressure drop provided by the determined arrangement decreases from the beginning of the horizontal extension to the bottom and each interval contributes equal specific inflow); and …
so that production or injection flow is equalized along the horizontal extension of the horizontal well. (pg. 3 “: uniform specific inflow along the well during steady-state production is production flow equalized along the horizontal extension).
In particular, Landman teaches a coupled reservoir-wellbore flow model for a horizontal well that numerically determines the number, positions, and spacing of uniform-dimension perforations, section by section, so that the specific inflow into the well is as uniform as possible during production.
However, Landman fails to teach explicitly installing the production string in the horizontal well permanently, wherein the production string comprises a divergent arrangement comprising a plurality of divergent sand-containment screens or a divergent liner; … and producing or injecting fluid through the production string installed in the horizontal well.
Richards teaches installing the production string in the horizontal well permanently, wherein the production string comprises a divergent arrangement comprising a plurality of divergent sand-containment screens or a divergent liner (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 1-14 “A production tubing string 12 is installed in a wellbore 14 of a well. The tubing string 12 includes multiple well screens 16 positioned in an uncased generally horizontal portion of the wellbore 14.”; col. 3 lines 53-56 “A length, inner diameter and other characteristics of the tube may be varied to thereby vary the restriction to flow of the fluid 32 through the tube.”; col. 4 lines 10-17 “the appropriate flow restrictor 40 may be selected (e.g., having an appropriate inner diameter, length and other characteristics to produce a desired flow restriction or pressure drop) and installed in the inflow control device 34” : the tubing string with its multiple sand control screens is installed to remain in the well for production, each screen’s flow restriction being fixed at the surface before the string is run, so the succession of individually configured screens forms an arrangement whose flow admission differs, i.e., diverges, from section to section; Examiner’s Note – the individually configured sand control screens correspond to the recited “divergent sand-containment screens”, the claim itself defining the divergent arrangement by the section-wise arrangement of its holes); and
producing or injecting fluid through the production string installed in the horizontal well (col. 3 lines 17-35 “the screens could be used in an injection well, rather than in a production well…. A fluid 32 flows inwardly through a filter portion 26 of the screen 16: formation fluid is produced inward through the installed screens, and the same string may instead serve an injection well). In particular, Richards teaches a production tubing string carrying multiple sand control screens with individually set inflow control devices, installed in an uncased generally horizontal portion of a wellbore and used for production or for injection through the screens.
Landman and Richards are analogous art because they are both related to distributing inflow along horizontal well completions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Richards into Landman’s invention for the purpose of optimization of perforation distribution for horizontal wells to provide a system useful for balancing production from long horizontal intervals (Richards: Col 1 lines 19-24).
As per Claim 2, Landman teaches The horizontal well production method with uniform flow of claim 1, wherein the horizontal well information further comprises a horizontal well design flow rate, (pg. 2-3 “Make the specific flowrate into the well (the inflow per unit length) as uniform as possible, given the production rate Q.”: the design production rate Q is an express input of the model)m a gas/oil ratio (pg. 1 “it would be possible to incorporate laminar flow or multiphase flow”; pg. 6, Conclusions “Similarly, a multiphase wellbore pressure drop model could be included.”: gas/oil ratio is the quantity that specifies the relative proportions of gas and oil in the multiphase produced fluid and is necessary to characterize that multiphase flow, so that a model operable on multiphase gas-and-oil production is the predictable result of Landman’s own contemplated extension), reservoir pressure, flow pressure (PWF), and viscosity (pg. 2”The reservoir is infinite, isotropic and homogeneous (except for the multiple zone model), with a constant pressure boundary at infinity.”, “Reynolds-number”; pg. 6 “Nomenclature”: the constant reservoir boundary pressure, the downstream drawdown corresponding to the recited flow pressure (PWF), and the dynamic viscosity entering the Reynolds number of eq. (10) are each express inputs of the model).
As per Claim 6, Landman teaches wherein the horizontal well is in a sandstone, carbonate or clastic sedimentary rock type reservoir (Landman, p.5 “Reservoir with Two Permeability Zones”; Appendix B: two-permeability-zone reservoir extension demonstrates direct applicability to heterogeneous formations of any lithology class and sandstone, carbonate, and clastic sedimentary rock are the three rock-type classes that comprise essentially all petroleum reservoirs).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landman (“Optimization of Perforation Distribution for Horizontal Wells”) in view of Richards (US 7469743 B2), further in view of Sampson (US 2017/0167233 A1).
Landman as modified by Richards teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above.
As per Claim 4, Landman as modified by Richards fails to teach explicitly wherein the uniform diameter has a value of 1 to 3 cm (centimeter).
However, Sampson teaches wherein the uniform diameter has a value of 1 to 3 cm (centimeter) ([0027] “Examples exist wherein big hole perforations have entrance diameters that range from about 0.5 inches to about 1.2 inches and have lengths from about 0.2 inches to around 8 inches.”: entrance diameters of about 0.5 to 1.2 inches are about 1.27 to 3.05 cm, a range overlapping the recited 1 to 3 cm).
Landman, Richards, and Sampson are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, a method for production horizontal well.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Sampson into Landmans as modified by Richards’ invention to provide a system useful for balancing production from long horizontal intervals (Richards: Col 1 lines 19-24). Further the motivation to combine the teaching of Sampson is to provide a method that reduces the chances of creating multiple competing fractures within the formation and improves the effectiveness of fracture treatments, such as in horizontal wells (Sampson: [0039]).
6. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landman (“Optimization of Perforation Distribution for Horizontal Wells”) in view of Richards (US 7469743 B2), further in view of Economldes (“Matrix Stimulation Method for Horizontal Wells”).
Landman as modified by Richards teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above.
As per Claim 7, Landman as modified by Richards fails to teach explicitly further comprising using a stimulation method, wherein the stimulation method comprises hydraulic fracturing, acidification or solvent injection.
Economldes teaches further comprising using a stimulation method, wherein the stimulation method comprises hydraulic fracturing, acidification or solvent injection (Summary, Pg 854-856).
Landman, Richards, and Economldes are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, a method for production horizontal well.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Economldes into Landman as modified by Richards’ invention to provide a system useful for balancing production from long horizontal intervals (Richards: Col 1 lines 19-24). Further the motivation to combine the teaching of Economldes is to provide a method for selecting efficient matrix treatment of horizontal wells to allow uniform distribution of the stimulation fluids (Economldes: Summary, pg 858).
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landman (“Optimization of Perforation Distribution for Horizontal Wells”) in view of Richards (US 7469743 B2), and further in view of Richard (EP 0418374 B1).
Landman as modified by Richards teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above.
As per Claim 8, Landman as modified by Richards fails to teach explicitly further comprising using scale removers, wherein the scale removers comprise DTPA (ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) or EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid).
Richard teaches further comprising using scale removers, wherein the scale removers comprise DTPA (ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) or EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) (p. 3 “The present scale removal is effected with an aqueous solvent which comprises a polyaminopolycarboxylic acid such as EDTA or DTPA as a chelant or chelating agent which is intended to form a stable complex with the cation of the alkaline earth scale-forming material. Of these chelants, DTPA is the preferred species since it forms the most soluble complexes at greater reaction rate.”).
Landman, Richards, and Richard are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, a method for production horizontal well.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Richard into Landman as modified by Richards’ invention to provide a system useful for balancing production from long horizontal intervals (Richards: Col 1 lines 19-24) and to provide a useful method for more efficiently removing deposits from wells, wellstream processing equipment, pipelines and tubular goods used to produce oil from a subterranean formation (Richard: pg 5 lines 36-40 ).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Applicants have argued that:
PNG
media_image11.png
338
658
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees. As rejected above, Richards installs a production tubing string carrying multiple sand control screens in an uncased generally horizontal portion of a wellbore, with each screen's flow restriction set individually before the string is run (Richards, col. 3 lines 1-14; col. 4 lines 10-17), and Landman determines the spacing and number of the holes section by section so that the specific inflow is uniform along the well, the determined perforation density increasing towards the upstream end of the well so that the pressure drop provided by the determined distribution decreases from the beginning of the horizontal extension to the bottom (Landman, pg. 4; pg. 6, Conclusions). Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. And furthermore, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Thus 103 rejection maintains.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights