DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 - 20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended.
This office action is in response to submission of the amendments on 05/05/2025.
The instant office action relies on Roussel et al. “Optimizing Fracture Spacing and Sequencing in Horizontal-Well Fracturing” which is cited on the IDS dated 10/24/2023.
Response to Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive. Specifically, the recited “extracting” is part of the abstract idea (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101).
Response to Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/05/2025 was disapproved (see Terminal disclaimer review decision, dated 05/08/2025). Therefore, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Response to Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive. Specifically, the recited “extracting” is taught by Kampfer (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103 for the detailed mapping).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable overclaims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,500,114. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent are narrower in scope than that of the issued patent. Therefore, the claims of the issued patent anticipate the claims of the instant application (see in re Karlsson).
Instant Application 18/045,255
US Patent No.11,500,114
1. A method for stimulating a subterranean formation comprising:
a) measuring a poroelastic pressure response of a subterranean formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation in an active well to generate a measured poroelastic pressure response;
b) automatically identifying a closest simulated poroelastic pressure response in a library of simulated poroelastic pressure response said poroelastic pressure response library comprising simulated poroelastic pressure responses of known fracture geometry generated utilizing a geomechanical model comprising;
extracting one or more characteristics of said measured poroelastic pressure response selected from time-lag, magnitude, slope, elapsed time to reach maximum pressure (delta_t_tmax), elapsed time to reach minimum pressure (delta_t_min), maximum deviation in poroelastic pressure (delta_p_max), minimum deviation in poroelastic pressure (delta_P_min), and maximum slope (max delta_p/delta_t), and using physics-informed data analytics to process poroelastic pressure data including one or more extracted characteristics in real time to provide an immediate assessment of the
stimulated reservoir volume (SRV);
c) estimating a geometrical parameter of a fracture or fractures in the subterranean formation based on the closest simulated poroelastic pressure response; and
d) changing a fracture design to optimize completion in the active well.
1. A method for characterizing a subterranean formation comprising:
a) simulating a poroelastic pressure response of known fracture geometry utilizing a geomechanical model to generate a simulated poroelastic pressure response;
b) repeating a) to compile a database of simulated poroelastic pressure responses;
c) measuring a poroelastic pressure response of a subterranean formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation to generate a measured poroelastic pressure response;
d) identifying from the measured poroelastic pressure response a closest simulated poroelastic pressure response in the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses; and
e) estimating a geometrical parameter of a fracture or fractures in the subterranean formation based on the closest simulated poroelastic pressure response.
Further, the following claims map from the instant application to the issued patent where I denotes instant application and P defined the issued patent: Claim 2 (I): Claim 2 (P); Claim 3 (I): Claim 3 (P); Claim 4 (I): Claim 4 (P); Claim 5 (I): Claim 5 (P); Claim 6 (I): Claim 6 (P); Claim 7 (I): Claim 7 (P); Claim 8 (I): Claim 8 (P); Claim 9 (I): Claim 9 (P); Claim 10 (I): Claim 10 (P); Claim 11 (l): Claim 11 (P); Claim 12 (l): Claim 12 (P); Claim 13 (I): Claim 13 (P); Claim 14 (l): Claim 14 (P); Claim 15 (l): Claim 15 (P); Claim 16 (I): Claim 16 (P); Claim 17 (l): Claim 17 (P); Claim 18 (l): Claim 18 (P); Claim 19 (l): Claim 19 (P); Claim 20 (l): Claim 20 (P).
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 11, claim a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below.
(Highlighted portions in bold of the claim constitute an abstract idea; the remaining limitations are "additional elements"): The claim recites:
1. A method for stimulating a subterranean formation comprising:
a) measuring a poroelastic pressure response of a subterranean formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation in an active well to generate a measured poroelastic pressure response;
b) identifying a closest simulated poroelastic pressure response in a library of simulated poroelastic pressure response said poroelastic pressure response library comprising simulated poroelastic pressure responses of known fracture geometry generated utilizing a geomechanical model comprising: (mentaI process - observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and
extracting one or more characteristics of said measured poroelastic pressure response selected from time-lag, magnitude, slope, elapsed time to reach maximum pressure (delta_t_max), elapsed time to reach minimum pressure (delta_t_min), maximum deviation in poroelastic pressure (delta_p_max), minimum deviation in poroelastic pressure (delta_p_min), and maximum slope (max delta_p/delta_t), and using physics-informed data analytics to process poroelastic pressure data including one or more extracted characteristics in real time to provide an immediate assessment of the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV); (mentaI process - observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
c) estimating a geometrical parameter of a fracture or fractures in the subterranean formation based on the closest simulated poroelastic pressure response (mental process - observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and
d) changing a fracture design to optimize completion in an active well.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). Identifying a closest simulated poroelastic pressure response is under its broadest reasonable interpretation evaluating the data within a dataset (library) and mentally comparing and making a judgement about the closest match. Extracting one or more characteristics of said measured poroelastic pressure response require no more than analytical evaluations from previously obtained data which could be performed mentally. Using physics-informed data analystics to process data and provide a real-time assessment requires no more than analytical evaluations using physical relationships to provide a judgement, where real time does not require specific timing requirements precluding performance in the mind. Estimating a parameter based on the identified closest poroelastic pressure response is also a judgement based on the evaluation and then providing an opinion (estimate). Changing a fracture design requires no more than judgements and evaluations which could be performed mentally on an intangible “design”. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general fieId of use or insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitations of the general preamble, "measuring a poroelastic pressure response of a subterranean formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation in an active well to generate a measured poroelastic pressure response" and that the identifying is “automatically”. The step of measuring pressure response appears to be insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and outputting (2106.05(g)). Therefore, this does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Merely automating a mental process step does not amount to significantly more (e.g., using a computer). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception.
The additional limitations in claim 1 are measuring a pressure response, and that the identifying is “automatically”. As noted above, this appears to be insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and outputting (2106.05(g)). Further evidence that measuring a pressure response is well understood routine and conventional is the generic way it is claimed and taught by for example Kampfer, US 2017/0002652 (see [0027] "After the monitoring well is selected, in S303, a pressure gauge is connected in direct fluid communication with the monitoring well in order to monitor the pressure changes in the step(s). The pressure gauge may be, but is not limited to, a surface pressure gauge or a subsurface pressure gauge. Among suitable pressure measurement techniques, the surface gauge approach is far simpler and far less costly, reducing the risk of implementation and cost by orders of magnitude."). This teaches that pressure measurements are mere data collection. The “automating” requires no more than automation using a general purpose computer which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the independent claim 1 does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101. Independent claim 11 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Independent claim 11 recites additional limitations of "computer-processor to query a database" and "the library is stored in a non-transitory computer storage medium" that are generic computer type functions. These generic functions are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention to a patentable invention because the recited components (i.e., processor, or non-transitory storage medium) are recited at a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer system, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing more than when considering them individually since the “measuring” and “automatically identifying” require no more than generic computer functions. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims, see below for detail.
Claims 2 and 12 recite wherein the geometrical parameter is one or more of: height of fracture, length of fracture, width of fracture, fracture asymmetry, residual width from proppant, orientation of fracture, stimulated reservoir volume, and drained reservoir volume. This is merely describing the type of data the system is collecting (analysis same as in step 2B above for data collection for claim 1 and that links the data to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 3 and 13 recite wherein the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses is searchable by one or more of: elapsed time to reach maximum pressure, elapsed time to reach minimum pressure, maximum deviation in poroelastic pressure, minimum deviation in poroelastic pressure, and maximum slope. This is merely describing the type of data the system is collecting (analysis same as in step 2B above for data collection for claim 1 and that links the data to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 4 and 14 recite wherein the estimating of dimension or dimensions of a fracture or fractures is completed in real-time as the hydraulic fracturing operation is performed. This is a further recitation of an abstract idea, as mental processes can occur in real-time.
Claims 5 and 15 recite wherein the hydraulic fracturing operation is a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing operation. This links the abstract idea to a field of use, but this is not sufficient without more to integrate it into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 6 and 16 recite d) modifying a completion design parameter of the subterranean formation in real-time. This does not provide any additional details that would make this similar to the Diehr case, and is only a general statement that the design parameter should be modified which amounts to instructions to "apply it." MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 7 and 17 recite wherein the completion design parameter is one or more of: rate of subterranean fluid introduced, proppant concentration, proppant volume, and injection rate. This links the abstract idea to a field of use, but this is not sufficient without more to integrate it into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 8 and 18 recite wherein the poroelastic pressure response is measured at surface or in a well. This is merely describing the type of data the system is collecting (analysis same as in step 2B above for data collection for claim 1 and that links the data to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 9 and 19 recite wherein the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses includes at least one suggested completion design parameter selected from: injection rate, fluid type, fluid volume, proppant type, proppant volume, cluster spacing, and stage spacing. This links the abstract idea to a field of use, but this is not sufficient without more to integrate it into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 10 and 20 recite wherein the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses includes field data, completion design parameter, or well performance data. This links the abstract idea to a fieId of use, but this is not sufficient without more to integrate it into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 12 and 14 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampfer et al., US 2017/0002652 (henceforth “Kampfer”) in view of James et al., US 2016/0115780 (henceforth “James”).
With regard to claim 1, Kampfer teaches a method for stimulating a subterranean formation comprising:
a) measuring a poroelastic pressure response of a subterranean formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation in an active well to generate a measured poroelastic pressure response (Kampfer [0012] "The present invention provides an improved approach for mapping hydraulic fractures by using measured pressures during the hydraulic fracturing process, which have their origin in a poroelastic response due to the propagation and dilation of a hydraulic fracture."; [0035] "The measured pressures are recorded in S310. After the monitoring is completed, in S311, the valve connecting the pressure gauge and the monitoring well is closed. Further fracturing operations may then be performed in the next stage in the monitoring well. In S312, a determination is made to decide whether more data is needed, and if yes, S304-S312 may be repeated as many times as desired.", and Figure 3 this is from a monitoring well to monitor actual fracturing operations (during fracturing operation in an active well)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
simulated poroelastic pressure responses of known fracture geometry generated utilizing a geomechanical model (Kampfer, [0045] "The simulation re-produces the poroelastic pressure increase one would expect in an observation fracture, at a certain distance to a second fracture, which is pressurized/dilated/propagating. A series of such simulations for various distances between the two fractures are conducted and the resulting normalized pressure increase is then displayed on a surface plot spanned in a normalized space of fracture overlap and fracture offset."); and
extracting one or more characteristics of said measured poroelastic pressure response selected from time-lag, magnitude, slope, elapsed time to reach maximum pressure (delta_t_max), elapsed time to reach minimum pressure (delta_t)min), maximum deviation in poroelastic pressure (delta_p_max), minimum deviation in poroelastic pressure (delta_p_min), and maximum slope (max delta_p/delta_t), and (Kampfer [0043] “The rate of change in the pressure response and the magnitude are clear indicators of either direct fluid communication or poroelastic influence”)
using physics-informed data analytics to process poroelastic pressure data including one or more extracted characteristics in real time to provide an immediate assessment of the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV); (Kampfer [0043] the pressure responses are indicative of real physical fracture processes “The rate of change in the pressure response and the magnitude are clear indicators of either direct fluid communication or poroelastic influence”)
c) estimating a geometrical parameter of a fracture or fractures in the subterranean formation based on the closest simulated poroelastic pressure response (Kampfer, [0053] "FIG. 5 is a Pore Pressure Map according to one embodiment of the present invention. The Pore Pressure Map shows history match of poroelastic pressure response observed in a series of stages of a stimulated well from an observation fracture in an adjacent observation well. The history match provides the overlap and offsetforeach stage as well as the FHL/FHT ratio of 4.").
d) changing a fracture design to optimize completion in the active well. (Kampfer [0054] well-spacing affects overall fracture connections from adjacent wells (changing a fracture design to optimize) “The determined hydraulic fracture geometries according to the above described analysis may optimize the spacings between two or more wells penetrating the subterranean formation, and the forming of a further fracture emanating from the adjacent well(s).”)
Kampfer does not explicitly disclose b) automatically identifying a closest simulated poroelastic pressure response in a library of simulated poroelastic pressure response said poroelastic pressure response library;
James teaches:
b) automatically identifying a closest simulated poroelastic pressure response in a library of simulated poroelastic pressure response said poroelastic pressure response library (James Fig. 1 steps 140 and 150 describing comparing simulated responses and measured responses to identify fracture hydraulic parameters; [0018] "numerically simulating a transient and using optimization methods through history matching to determine fracture hydraulic parameters."; [0078] lookup tables are used to perform the comparison (automatically identifying) "Thus, by using an electrical model, simulated responses with their associated flow resistances and fracture capacitances can be obtained for previous actual fracture stimulation operations, future actual stimulation operations, and any other stimulation operations that one may encounter since the information regarding the well, the casing, and the fluid are already known, will be known, or can be predicted .... advance. All these simulated responses, flow resistances, and fracture capacitances may be saved in a database or lookup table for comparison with future stimulation operations. In one embodiment, the comparison may be performed by adjusting the resistor in the electrical model first to determine the flow resistance and then adjusting the capacitor to determine the facture capacitance. Therefore, it is possible to model every expected response and different combination of depth, fracture flow resistance, fracture capacitance, and response at the surface in terms of the pressure transient that is generated at the surface for a given field. The benefit is that hydraulic properties of the fracture system of the reservoir can be inferred by just looking at the pressure responses observed at the surface during the water hammering. The model allows one to infer the flow resistance and the hydraulic capacitance of the fracture based on the pressure response measured at the surface. In other words, if the comparison shows a match, the flow resistance and fracture capacitance of the actual fracture stimulation operation can be obtained from the flow resistance and fracture capacitance of the matched simulated response. With this lookup table, one does not need to manually change the resistance and capacitance in the electrical model for matching its simulated response to every measured response. The benefit of having the lookup table or database allows an operator to calculate these parameters very quickly.")
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer (directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions (look up table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success (obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
With regard to claim 2, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the geometrical parameter is one or more of: height of fracture, length of fracture, width of fracture, fracture asymmetry, residual width from proppant, orientation of fracture, stimulated reservoir volume, and drained reservoir volume (Kampfer, [0045] "These maps are very sensitive to the fracture geometry, i.e. the fracture height. The combination of the measured pressure signals and the surface plots for different fracture heightto length ratios provide the final geometry of the hydraulic fracture in the subsurface.").
With regard to claim 4, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1. Kampfer does not explicitly
disclose, but James teaches wherein the estimating of dimension or dimensions of a fracture or fractures is completed in real-time as the hydraulic fracturing operation is performed ([0078] "The operator can get the transient response from the initial injection or leak off test before the primary stimulation of every stage in a horizontal wellbore, thereby providing the operator valuable information needed on a near real time basis to optimize each particular stage before pumping any proppant.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer (directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions ( look up table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success ( obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
With regard to claim 5, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic fracturing operation is a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing operation (Kampfer, Fig. 2 S301 identify wells for "multi-stage hydraulic fracturing").
With regard to claim 6, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1. Kampfer does not explicitly disclose but James teaches, further comprising: d) modifying a completion design parameter of the subterranean formation in real-time (James, [0078] "thereby providing the operator valuable information needed on a near real time basis to optimize each particular stage before pumping any proppant.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer(directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions (look up table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success (obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
With regard to claim 7, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 6. Kampfer does not explicitly disclose but James teaches, wherein the completion design parameter is one or more of: rate of subterranean fluid introduced, proppant concentration, proppant volume, and injection rate (James, [0064] "Referring to FIG. 2, the fracturing treatment in which the leak-off test is performed has a duration of approximately three hours from start to finish. FIG. 3 is a breakdown of FIG. 2 that shows the treatment rate (the top graph), the treatment pressure (the middle graph), and the proppant concentration (the bottom graph) of the fracturing treatment." These parameters are then able to used by [0078] "the operator valuable information needed on a near real time basis to optimize each particular stage before pumping any proppant.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer (directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions (look up table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success ( obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
With regard to claim 8, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the poroelastic pressure response is measured at surface or in a well (Kampfer, [0027] "The pressure gauge may be, but is not limited to, a surface pressure gauge or a subsurface pressure gauge. Among suitable pressure measurement techniques, the surface gauge approach is far simpler and far less costly, reducing the risk of implementation and cost by orders of magnitude.").
With regard to claim 9, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1. Kampfer does not explicitly disclose but James teaches, wherein the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses includes at least one suggested completion design parameter selected from: injection rate, fluid type, fluid volume, proppant type, proppant volume, cluster spacing, and stage spacing (James, [0083] "determining fracture hydraulic parameters using the measured response 140 in FIG.1, one can determine flow resistance and fracture capacitance by either comparing the simulated response to the measured response with help from a lookup table or employing numerical optimization .... The optimization of the stimulation treatment may be adjusting the volume, properties or rate (i.e., number of barrels per minute) of the fracturing fluid is required to fracture the reservoir, adjusting the volume, size or type of prop pant carried by the fracturing fluid, or omitting a hydraulic fracturing treatment altogether for a given stage.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer (directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions (look up table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success (obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
With regard to claim 10, modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses includes field data, completion design parameter, or well performance data (James, [0083] "Therefore, referring to the step of determining fracture hydraulic parameters using the measured response 140 in FIG.1, one can determine flow resistance and fracture capacitance by either comparing the simulated response to the measured response with help from a lookup table or employing numerical optimization. Based on the determined flow resistance and fracture capacitance, one can optimize a stimulation treatment to the reservoir 150.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer (directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions (look up table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success (obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
With regard to claim 11, Kampfer does not explicitly disclose but James teaches using a computer-processor to query a database (James, [0078] "All these simulated responses, flow resistances, and fracture capacitances may be saved in a database or lookup table for comparison with future stimulation operations." This is construed as teaching the generic computer components including non-transitory storage media.). Additionally, Claim 11 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Kampfer (directed to determining geometric fracture parameters through simulations based on measurements) and James (similarly directed to determinations of fracture parameters) before them, to have tried to address the need (fast parameter determination via queries) of Kampfer by using one or more of the known predictable solutions (lookup table or database of simulated fracture operations) of James, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success ( obtaining fracture properties as a typical inverse problem of matching measured and simulated responses.).
Claim 12 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 14 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 15 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 16 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 17 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 18 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 19 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 20 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampfer in view of James, and further in view of Roussel et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0176394 (henceforth “Roussel (394)”).
With regard to claim 3, Modified Kampfer teaches The method of claim 1. Kampfer does not explicitly disclose, wherein the library of simulated poroelastic pressure responses is searchable by one or more of: elapsed time to reach maximum pressure, elapsed time to reach minimum pressure, maximum deviation in poroelastic pressure, minimum deviation in poroelastic pressure, and maximum slope.
Roussel teaches wherein the database of simulated poroelastic pressure responses is searchable by one or more of: elapsed time to reach maximum pressure, elapsed time to reach minimum pressure, maximum deviation in poroelastic pressure, minimum deviation in poroelastic pressure, and maximum slope (Roussel, [0030-0033] describing measured the pressure responses using sensors that includes time-based pressure transient analysis).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Kampfer (directed to analysis of hydraulic fracturing operations) and Roussel (directed to analysis of hydraulic fracturing processes) and arrived at the creation and storage of the additional types of pressure responses as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because it would improve the efficiency of the fracturing operations by providing a more complete understanding of the fractures in the field as taught in Roussel ([0005]).
Claim 13 contains limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the method described in claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either to specific areas or as direct language, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Roussel et al. (US 10954774) teaches determining hydraulic fracture orientation.
Weng et al. (US 8412500) teaches simulating fracture networks which adhere to the laws of phyiscs.
Wu et al. (US 2009/0145600) teaches analyzing a reservoir using poroelastic theory.
Kampfer et al. “A Novel Approach to Mapping Hydraulic Fractures Using Poromechanic Principles” teaches analyzing a reservoir using poromechanic principles.
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 ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights