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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 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 term “ sufficient acid coverage ” in claim 1 (and the dependent claims thereof) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ sufficient acid coverage ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Using matrix acid stimulation, there can be different considerations and goals of the treatment, rendering the term unclear as to when the acid coverage is “sufficient.” The specification also does not provide a metric for determining whether acid coverage is “sufficient” or not. The term “ sufficient pressure” in claim 1 (and the dependent claims thereof) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““ sufficient pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Using matrix acid stimulation, there can be different considerations and goals of the treatment, rendering the term unclear as to when the pressure is “sufficient.” The specification also does not provide a metric for determining whether pressure is “sufficient” or not. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the segment." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 1 recites “plurality of segments” and “per segment” but no single “segment” rendering it unclear if “the segment” refers to one of the segments of claim 1, or another segment altogether. 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. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 The entirety of claim 1 recites a mental process. The claim recites a simulation including a calculation of a number of holes and a cross-sectional area of the holes based on various parameters, and an adjustment to the number of holes if a condition is not met. These limitations could be performed in the human mind, or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process. Alternatively, the claim recites a mathematical concept. The claims recite performing the calculation and adjustments based on mathematical correlations. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . There are no additional elements in claim 1. Therefore, t he claim s are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . There are no additional elements in claim 1. For this reason, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8 merely narrow the abstract idea, above, and therefore do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 9 and 10 recites using a data processing system for performing the method of claim 1. The same abstract idea is recited at Step 2A Prong 1. At Step 2A Prong 2, this additional element amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception via a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim s are directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of a “data processing system” amount s to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. Dependent claim 11 recites that the data processing system includes a processor (along with a non-limiting list that the system may include a computer, laptop, handheld electronic device, or electronic workstation), and further that the data processing system communicates the outcome of those steps to a user of the system. The same abstract idea is recited at Step 2A Prong 1. At Step 2A Prong 2, the “communicate” functionality amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. T hat the system uses a processor and type of generic computer amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception via a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. At Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements regarding generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation . The same analysis applies here in Step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. For the “communicate” step that was considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2 , this has been re- evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification, in [0029], describes the communication in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Furthermore, t he OIP Techs. court decision indicate s that presenting information is a well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) . For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 . Claim (s) 1, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 2009/0294122) in view of Sau et al., Advanced Completion and Stimulation Design Model for Maximum Reservoir Contact Wells, SPE-171800-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014 . Claim 1: Hansen discloses: A method of simulating fluid transport of an acid in a system for stimulating an oil or gas well in a material formation, which system comprises a limited entry liner, wherein the limited entry liner is divided into a plurality of segments, the plurality of segments having a length less than that of a total length of the limited entry liner, and including one or more holes along a wall of the limited entry liner for discharging a fluid into the material formation (Hansen [0062], Fig. 3 showing simulation of a controlled acid jet liner (which is the same a limited entry liner) divided into a plurality of cells) , wherein the method comprises With respect to the limitation: calculating an initial estimate of the number of holes along the wall of the limited entry liner and an estimated cross-sectional area of the holes, wherein the estimated cross-sectional area is based on a velocity for providing the amount of the acid needed to generate dissolution patterns and a pump rate for keeping an injection pressure below a fracturing pressure of the material formation of the oil or gas well, Hansen, in [0176] discloses calculating a “distribution of holes” via “trial and error,” which would entail calculating initial estimates regarding the holes. Further, Hansen, in [0176], also discloses that the calculation will be for determining an amount of acid needed to generate dissolution patterns, and also at a maximum pump rate without fracturing the formation. Hansen does not explicitly state that the “distribution of holes” includes sizing of holes (but see [0004], [0015] showing that the number and sizing of holes is known to be optimization parameters). However, Sau, on pp. 11-13 in the “Limited Entry Liner & Bullhead Stimulation Design” section, similarly teaches an LEL optimization system that uses non-uniform hole design and sizing, along with pump pressures, to achieve proper acid distribution. Specifically, p. 12 describes that “non-uniform hole distribution, fewer and smaller diameter holes near the heel and increasing density towards the toe, is required” and p. 13 describes a “final robust design” with a particular hole sizing. It would have been obvious to combine the method of simulating a controlled acid jetting liner with the technique of optimizing certain parameters because “ One of the main challenges of MRC wells is achieving adequate stimulation over the entire length (10,000 + ft) of the completion lateral ” and “ Understanding and modeling the fluid placement inside the annulus between the wellbore and the liner for these scenarios is the key for successful completion and stimulation design. ” Sau p. 2. With respect to the limitation: wherein the initial estimate of the number of holes along the wall of the limited entry liner is calculated to enable a sufficient acid coverage of the acid per segment and a sufficient pressure across a last one of the holes, wherein a drop in pressure ( dp ) across the last one of the holes is linearly correlated with the estimated cross-sectional area, and Hansen, in [0176], again discloses calculating a “distribution of holes” via “trial and error,” which would entail calculating initial estimates regarding the holes. Further, Hansen, in [0176], also discloses that the calculation will be for determining sufficient acid coverage over the whole length, which would include sufficient acid coverage per segment . Hansen does not explicitly state that the “number of holes” is optimized or explicitly that the acid coverage is based on “sufficient pressure across a last one of the holes. ” However, Sau, on pp. 11-13 in the “Limited Entry Liner & Bullhead Stimulation Design” section, similarly teaches an LEL optimization system that uses non-uniform hole design and sizing, along with pump pressures, to achieve proper acid distribution. Specifically, p. 12 describes that “non-uniform hole distribution, fewer and smaller diameter holes near the heel and increasing density towards the toe, is required,” and on p. 12, Fig. 5, first full paragraph, that the completion pressure can be maintained through the toe (which would include “a last one of the holes”) for uniform acid distribution, and the result on p. 13 describes a “final robust design” with a particular number of holes. The rationale to combine with Sau persists. Examiner notes the “ wherein a drop in pressure ( dp ) across the last one of the holes is linearly correlated with the estimated cross-sectional area ” is not actively used in this step or the subsequent step, below, but is currently phrased merely as a statement of fact. With respect to the limitation: adjusting the initial estimate of the number of holes along the wall of the limited entry liner if a measured acid coverage per segment and the drop in pressure across the last hole is not honoured . Hansen, in [0176], describes calculating a “distribution of holes” via “trial and error,” which would entail calculating initial estimates regarding the holes, and then adjusting those estimates when conditions are not met. Hansen does not explicitly state that modifying the “distribution of holes” includes adjusting the number of holes (but see [0004], [0015] showing that the number and sizing of holes is known to be optimization parameters). Sau, on pp. 11-13 in the “Limited Entry Liner & Bullhead Stimulation Design” section, similarly teaches an LEL optimization system that uses non-uniform hole design and sizing, along with pump pressures, to achieve proper acid distribution. As above, specifically Specifically , p. 12 describes that “non-uniform hole distribution, fewer and smaller diameter holes near the heel and increasing density towards the toe, is required,” and the result p. 13 describes a “final robust design” with a particular number of holes is used to provide ideal pressure and acid coverage as described on p. 12, first full paragraph. The rationale to combine with Sau persists. Examiner further notes the final limitation of claim 1 is a contingent limitation of which the condition need not be met, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the step to be performed if the condition is not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II). Claim 7 : Hansen discloses: wherein simulating the fluid transport comprises simulating the fluid transport in a limited entry liner (Hansen [0009-0010]) . Claim 9: See above rejection of claim 1. In addition, Hansen, in [0027-0030], discloses a data processing system for implementing the invention. Claim 10 : See above rejection of claim 1. In addition, Hansen, in [0027-0030], discloses a data processing system for implementing the invention Claim 11 : See above rejection of claim 11. In addition, Hansen, in [0027-0030], discloses a data processing system, including a processor and desktop computer. Further, Hansen, in Fig. 6, [0109-0111] shows output of results of a simulation. Novelty/ Nonobviousness No art is applied to claims 2-6 or 8. While the Hansen and Sau references generally discuss how to model a CAJ/LEL operation, neither reference includes the specificity required in claims 2-6 or 8. Related prior art, Mogensen et al. (US 2016/0245049 A1) generally discloses simulation and optimizing wellbore operations ([0102]), Mogensen does not teach the features of claims 2-6 or 8. Related prior art Van Dongen (US 2017/0030174 A1) generally discloses the size/spacing considerations of a CAJ liner ([0038]), Van Dongen does not teach the features of claims 2-6 or 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asheim et al., Determination of Perforation Schemes to Control Production and Injection Profiles Along Horizontal Wells, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1997 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN H FLYNN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3108 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Beth Boswell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6737 . 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. /KEVIN H FLYNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3600