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. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The listing of references in the specification (i.e. a document listed in paragraph [0013]) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, it recites the limitation “A HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW, characterized in that there is:” in the preamble which would be better as “A HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW, the method comprise:”.
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “sizing the perforation distribution” in the step b) which would be better as “sizing perforation distribution” to avoid a potential antecedent basis issue.
As per Claim 2, it recites the limitation “API grade” which is unclear what the limitation refers. What is API?
As per claim 2-4, they recite the limitation “characterized in that” in line 1 which would be better as “wherein”.
As per claim 4, it recites the limitation “cm” in line 3 which would be better as “cm (centimeter)”.
As per claim 5, it recites the limitation “characterized in that” which would be better as “further comprises:”
AS per claim 6-9, it recites the limitation “characterized in that” which would be better as “further comprises:” or “further comprising”. Further it recites the limitation “it” which is unclear what the limitation refers.
As per Claim 9, it recites the limitation “optionally employs sand containment” in line 3 which is unclear what the limitation refers because it does not require any positive limitation. An "optional" element that the claim does not require to be performed does not narrow the scope of the parent claim. It is recommended to replace "optionally employs" with a positive recitation, e.g., "further comprising employing sand containment."
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.
4. Claims 1-9 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.
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “the production string” in the step a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “optimizing the perforation distribution” in the step c) which is indefinite because the term "optimizing" is purely result-oriented and the claim does not specify what is being optimized, toward what objective function, or under what constraint set.
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “using holes of uniform dimensions” in the step d) which is unclear what the limitation “uniform dimensions” refers because the claim does not specify which dimensions are required to be uniform. A perforation cylinder has at least three independent dimensions, i. e. diameter, length, and cross-sectional area, and the claim does not specify which of these dimensions must be common across all holes.
As per Claim 2, it recites the limitation “the horizontal well design flow rate” in line 3-4 and “the gas/oil ratio, reservoir pressure” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
5. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-9 recite steps or acts including using scale removers; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
a) designing the production string as a function of the length and diameter of the horizontal well (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
b) sizing the perforation distribution of the horizontal well production string according to the production string design (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
c) optimizing the perforation distribution in the production string (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”);
d) using holes of uniform dimensions (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”);
e) installing the production string of the horizontal open well permanently (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”);
f) using a stimulation method (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use) and/or “apply it”);
g) using scale removers (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “simulator” (Claim 1) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further the limitation of “computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)): “d) using holes of uniform dimensions (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”);
f) using a stimulation method (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use) and/or “apply it”);
g) using scale removers (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)”.
Further the limitation “e) installing the production string of the horizontal open well permanently (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”) is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “simulator” (Claim 1) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further the limitation of “computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Also the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself, is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use see MPEP 2106.05(h)): “d) using holes of uniform dimensions (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”);
e) installing the production string of the horizontal open well permanently (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”);
f) using a stimulation method (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use) and/or “apply it”);
g) using scale removers (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”)”.
Further dependent claims 2-9 recite:
2. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 1, characterized in that the computational fluid dynamics simulator uses the horizontal well design flow rate, the gas/oil ratio, reservoir pressure, flow pressure (PWF), viscosity and API grade (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
3. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 1, characterized in that all holes have the same diameter (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
4. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 3, characterized in that the hole diameter has a value of 1 to 3 cm (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
5. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 1, characterized in that the spacing and number of holes along the production string of the horizontal well are determined (mental process) by computational fluid dynamics simulation (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
6. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 1, characterized in that it is applied in sandstone, carbonate and clastic sedimentary rock type reservoirs (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
7. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 1, characterized in that it uses the following stimulation methods: hydraulic fracturing, acidification and solvent injection (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
8. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according 1, characterized in that it uses DTPA (ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) or EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) as scale removers (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
9. THE HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW according to claim 1, characterized in that it optionally employs sand containment (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use and/or “apply it”).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 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) and further in view of Richard (EP 0418374 B1).
As per Claim 1, Landman teaches a HORIZONTAL WELL PRODUCTION METHOD WITH UNIFORM FLOW (Abstract), characterized in that there is:
a) designing the production string as a function of the length and diameter of the horizontal well (Landman, p.6 Nomenclature: "D wellbore diameter (m)" and "L length of perforated horizontal well (m)"); p. 2 “Manifold Model for Pressure Drop In Well” explains that the wellbore pressure drop becomes significant "given a sufficiently long well of small diameter", so that L and D are the governing inputs to the production-string design);
b) sizing the perforation distribution of the horizontal well production string according to the production string design (Landman, Title, p.3 “PROBLEM 2A: Make the specific flowrate into the well (the inflow per unit length) as uniform as possible, given the drawdown", with the perforation positions along the production string determined as a function of the production-string design parameters);
c) optimizing the perforation distribution in the production string with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulator (p.2: "The pressure drop due to friction is derived from a single phase pipe flow model", p.3
PNG
media_image1.png
326
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
: couples the pipe-flow model with the per-perforation Darcy reservoir flow into a coupled iterative scheme, and converges the coupled system numerically – Examiner Note: The numerical solution of the coupled governing fluid-flow equations is computational fluid dynamics under its broadest reasonable interpretation);
d) using holes of uniform dimensions (Landman, p.2 “The Perforation Model for the Reservoir”, "A schematic diagram of the well model is shown in Figure 1. The perforations are considered to be cylindrical, of length a": all N perforations share the same length and the variable optimized in the model is the spatial position xᵢ of each perforation).
Landman fails to teach explicitly e) installing the production string of the horizontal open well permanently;
f) using a stimulation method;
g) using scale removers.
Richards teaches e) installing the production string of the horizontal open well permanently (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 1-12 “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.”);
f) using a stimulation method (Col. 1 lines 1-25 “the screens could be positioned in a generally vertical portion of a wellbore, the screens could be used in an injection well,”; col. 3 lines 1-12 “The tubing string 12 includes multiple well screens 16 positioned in an uncased generally horizontal portion of the wellbore 14.”: inherency considered as injection wells with screen often require stimulation such as acidizing or fracture stimulation to remove damage).
Furthermore, Richard teaches g) using scale removers (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 Richards and Richard into Landman’s 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 ).
As per Claim 2, Landman teaches that the computational fluid dynamics simulator uses the horizontal well design flow rate, the gas/oil ratio, reservoir pressure, flow pressure (PWF), viscosity and API grade (Landman, p.6 Nomenclature; pp.2–3 “friction-factor and Reynolds-number formulae).
As per Claim 3, Landman teaches that all holes have the same diameter (Landman, p.2 “The Perforation Model for the Reservoir”, "A schematic diagram of the well model is shown in Figure 1. The perforations are considered to be cylindrical, of length a": all N perforations share the same length and the variable optimized in the model is the spatial position xᵢ of each perforation).
As per Claim 5, Landman teaches that the spacing and number of holes along the production string of the horizontal well are determined by computational fluid dynamics simulation (p.2: "The pressure drop due to friction is derived from a single phase pipe flow model", p.3
PNG
media_image1.png
326
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
: couples the pipe-flow model with the per-perforation Darcy reservoir flow into a coupled iterative scheme, and converges the coupled system numerically – Examiner Note: The numerical solution of the coupled governing fluid-flow equations is computational fluid dynamics under its broadest reasonable interpretation).
As per Claim 6, Landman teaches that it is applied in sandstone, carbonate and clastic sedimentary rock type reservoirs (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).
As per Claim 8, Landman fails to teach explicitly it uses DTPA (ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) or EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) as scale removers.
Richard teaches it uses DTPA (ethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) or EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) as scale removers (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.”).
As per Claim 9, Landman fails to teach explicitly that it optionally employs sand containment.
Richards teaches that it optionally employs sand containment (Abstract “sand control screens”).
6. 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) and Richard (EP 0418374 B1), and further in view of Sampson (US 20170167233 A1).
Landman as modified by Richards and Richard teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 above.
As per Claim 4, Landman as modified by Richards and Richard fails to teach explicitly that the hole diameter has a value of 1 to 3 cm.
However, Sampson teaches that the hole diameter has a value of 1 to 3 cm ([0027]).
Landman, Richards, Richard, 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 and Richard’s 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 ). 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]).
7. 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) and Richard (EP 0418374 B1), and further in view of Economldes (“Matrix Stimulation Method for Horizontal Wells”).
Landman as modified by Richards and Richard teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 above.
As per Claim 7, Landman as modified by Richards and Richard fails to teach explicitly that it uses the following stimulation methods: hydraulic fracturing, acidification and solvent injection.
Economldes teaches that it uses the following stimulation methods: hydraulic fracturing, acidification and solvent injection (Summary, Pg 854-856).
Landman, Richards, Richard, 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 and Richard’s 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 ). 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).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karale (US 9938800 B2)
9. 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