DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 have been presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged to U.S. Provisional Application 63/287,038 filed on 7 December 2021.
Drawings
The drawings received on 7 December 2022 have been accepted.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 “near-wellbore” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near-wellbore” 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. The term “near” is a term of degree that lacks an objective standard for measurement in the specification. The specification fails to provide a radial distance or physical boundary to distinguish the “near-wellbore” region. Without a numerical range or functional limit, the scope of “near” is left to the subjective interpretation of the reader. Appropriate correction is required. All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-8 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recite the abstract idea of modeling flow performance of a subsurface fracture, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of “identifying a formation within which a fracture may be utilized for pumped energy storage and a fluid which may be pumped into or produced from the fracture via a wellbore;” covers mental process including merely noticing that a rock formation exists or that a fluid is present which are basic human cognitive abilities. Additionally, the limitation of “assuming one or more unknown characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;” covers mental process including evaluating data to determine the characteristics and filling in the missing characteristics. Additionally, the limitation covers mathematical concepts including inputting variables into a mathematical algorithm or statistical model, in this case a mechanical model. Additionally, the limitation “predicting flow performance of the fracture” covers mathematical concepts including utilizing an underlying algorithm or statistical model, in this case a mechanical model, being used to generate a prediction of flow performance as a result of the calculation. Alternatively, these limitations are a mental process that can be calculated with pencil and paper. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of mental process and mathematical concept performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations of “obtaining one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;” and “inputting the one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid and the one or more assumed characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid into a mechanical model of the formation;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional limitations of “obtaining one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;” and “inputting the one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid and the one or more assumed characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid into a mechanical model of the formation;” alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “obtaining one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;” and “inputting the one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid and the one or more assumed characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid into a mechanical model of the formation” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional limitations of “obtaining one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;” and “inputting the one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid and the one or more assumed characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid into a mechanical model of the formation;” alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation of “the mechanical model comprises coupling elastic deformation aspects of the lens with Darcy-Weisbach fluid flow spanning the laminar to turbulent regimes”, which further defines the mechanical model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 3 recites “one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the formation comprise a rock elasticity, a rock permeability, a near-wellbore tortuosity, or a near-wellbore perforation loss of the formation, or combinations thereof”, which further defines the known or assumed characteristics of the formation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 recites “one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the fracture comprise a lens radius, or a fracture width of the fracture, or combinations thereof”, which further defines the known or assumed characteristics of the fracture, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the fluid comprise a compressibility, or a density of the fluid, or combinations thereof”, which further defines the known or assumed characteristics of the fluid, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Depending claim 6 recites “inputting into the mechanical model one or more known or assumed characteristics of one or more surface components acting upon the fluid”, which is directed to inputting data into a model, which narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” (MPEP2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 7 recites “at least one of the one or more surface components comprises a choke, a shut-in valve, or a turbine, or combinations thereof”, which further defines the surface components, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 recites “calibrating the model against a measured flow performance of a fracture”, which is directed to further defining how the prediction is made, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2020/0380186 A1, hereafter V in view of U.S. Patent 4,234,294 A, hereafter J.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses a method of modeling flow performance of a subsurface fracture, comprising:
identifying a formation within which a fracture … and a fluid which may be pumped into or produced from the fracture via a wellbore;
V [0017] “a wellbore component and a perforation component may be used to delineate fluid flow in the subsurface. In this example, the wellbore component may be selected to model a wellbore section of the subsurface associated with one or more wellbores, and the perforation component may be selected to model a perforation section of the subsurface associated with one or more perforations. As another example, a perforation component and a fracture component may be used to delineate fluid flow in the subsurface. In this example, the perforation component may be selected to model a perforation section of the subsurface associated with one or more perforations, and the fracture component may be selected to model a fracture section of the subsurface associated with one or more fractures.”
V [0025] “changing the fluid being pumped into the wellbore (e.g. from water (used in one pumping stage) to a proppant including sand (used in a subsequent pumping stage))”
obtaining one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;
V [0019] “four separate flow components, including a wellbore component, a perforation component, a fracture component, and a rock component, are used to delineate the fluid flow in the subsurface ... The rock component may be selected to model a rock section of the subsurface associated with the rock in a part of the subsurface. The rock component may manifest as one or more equations indicative of the rock formation proximate to the fracture.”
V [0076] “the rock model may vary based on the type of rock, such as whether the rock can absorb the fluid or cannot absorb the fluid. In the instance where the rock can absorb the fluid (e.g., poro-elastic rock), the pressure of the fluid can apply force onto the rock, and the fluid itself can seep into the rock (e.g., there may be fluid transfer from the fracture into the rock).”
V [0026] “the selection of parameter(s) for any one, any combination, or all of the wellbore component, perforation component, fracture component or the rock component may be dynamic, and may be responsive to transition to a new stage. In particular, a first stage may have a first configuration (e.g., any one, any combination, or all of: a first number of perforations; a first number of fractures; a first geometry of perforations; a first geometry of fractures) and a second or subsequent stage may have a second configuration (e.g., any one, any combination, or all of: a second number of perforations; a second number of fractures; a second geometry of perforations; a second geometry of fractures).”
V [0020] “the simulation may couple the respective components for continuity of any one, any combination, or all: fluid kinematics, pressure, density, flow rate, or mass. The respective components may be represented in various ways, such as one or more equations, models, etc.”
assuming one or more unknown characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid which impact flow performance of the formation;
V [0039] “simulator system 200 includes simulator 202, model change trigger identifier 204, and model change selector 206. As discussed above, model change selector 206 is configured to determine a change to at least one aspect of the models (e.g., select, from the wellbore models 222, perforation models 224, fracture models 226, and rock models 228, the respective models for simulator 202 to use in a subsequent stage of the simulation; select one or more new variables for simulator 202 to use in the subsequent stage of the simulation). Simulator 202 is configured to simulate the fluid flow, including determining one or more aspects of the fluid flow. Model change trigger identifier 204, discussed further with regard to FIG. 4, is configured to identify a trigger which results in a change to a respective model (e.g., new model being selected for the simulation and/or new variables for the currently used models). Further, model change selector 206 may tailor the selection of the different components for the simulation based on one or more criteria, including any one, or both of the following: current circumstances of the simulation (e.g., the component is tailored to the current fluid used and/or to current configuration, etc.); or desired complexity (e.g., model change selector 206 tailors the selection based on computational capability of the system).
inputting the one or more known characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid and the one or more assumed characteristics of the formation, fracture, and fluid into a mechanical model of the formation;
V [0020] “Further, the simulation may couple respective components at discrete points (e.g., at any one, any combination, or all of: a wellbore-perforation joint/interface; a perforation-fracture joint/interface; and/or a fracture-rock joint/interface) for continuity of at least one aspect of fluid flow.”
V [0030] “Further, the simulation may solve for various aspects of fluid mechanics at the interfaces between components, such as at any one, any combination, or all of: the first wellbore-perforation interface 112; the second wellbore-perforation interface 114; the first perforation-fracture interface 124, or the second perforation-fracture interface 126. Further, in the event that additional components, such as a rock component are modeled, the simulation may solve for various aspects of fluid mechanics at the fracture-rock interface.”
and predicting flow performance of the fracture.
V [0039] “Simulator 202 is configured to simulate the fluid flow, including determining one or more aspects of the fluid flow.”
V does not explicitly disclose a fracture which may be utilized for pumped energy storage.
However, J discloses a fracture may be utilized for pumped energy storage.
J [Column 6: Lines 60-68 – Column 7: Lines 1-8] “What has been described is a hydraulic pumping system which will lift liquids from deep wells. The system uses a motor-driven pump at the surface to provide pressurized liquid to drive a reciprocating pump lowered into the bottom of the tubing, the power cylinder or LDC receives pressurized liquid from the surface to move downwardly on the lifting half of the cycle, which depresses liquid from the bottom of the piston into the tubing, up the tubing, and into the sump and to storage and on the reverse half of the cycle, the pump at the surface provides pressurized liquid to move into the top of the tubing down through the tubing and up under the piston of the LDC, flowing liquid out of the LDC into a high pressure accumulator at the surface. The high pressure accumulator will store hydraulic energy until the next half-cycle when it releases this energy to aid the surface pump in the lifting process.”
V and J are analogous because they both pertain to the field of fluid dynamics. Specifically, both references utilize pressure to generate stored energy used to pump water to the surface making the teachings of V and J relevant to one working in the field of V.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that applying the method of modeling flow performance of a subsurface fracture of V to the deep well of stored hydraulic energy of J would have yielded in an improved system such that the stored hydraulic energy would allow for a natural method of transferring the water from the underground fracture in the well to the surface (See V [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2: V in view of J disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the mechanical model comprises coupling elastic deformation aspects of the lens with Darcy-Weisbach fluid flow spanning the laminar to turbulent regimes.
V [0019] “four separate flow components, including a wellbore component, a perforation component, a fracture component, and a rock component, are used to delineate the fluid flow in the subsurface ... The rock component may be selected to model a rock section of the subsurface associated with the rock in a part of the subsurface. The rock component may manifest as one or more equations indicative of the rock formation proximate to the fracture.”
V [0076] “the rock model may vary based on the type of rock, such as whether the rock can absorb the fluid or cannot absorb the fluid. In the instance where the rock can absorb the fluid (e.g., poro-elastic rock), the pressure of the fluid can apply force onto the rock, and the fluid itself can seep into the rock (e.g., there may be fluid transfer from the fracture into the rock).”
V [0046] “wellbore model is a 1D wellbore model based on mass conservation with Darcy-Weisbach equation.”
V [0037] “Example fracture models include, without limitation, any one, any combination, or all of: Plane Poiseuille flow; non-linear Darcy flow; linear Darcy flow; a combination of Poiseuille and Darcy flow; or Plane Poiseuille with proppant concentration and settlement. The fracture model may be directed to fluid leak-off from the fracture. Based on the current stage of the simulation, model selector 208 may select one of the fracture models 226 for use in the simulation.”
Regarding Claim 3: V in view of J disclose the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the formation comprise a rock elasticity, a rock permeability, a near-wellbore tortuosity, or a near-wellbore perforation loss of the formation, or combinations thereof.
V [0038] “Example rock models include, without limitation, any one or both of: poro-elastic; or elastic; elastic-plastic rock model. Finally, based on the current stage of the simulation, model selector 208 may select one of the rock models 228 for use in the simulation.”
[0076] the rock model may vary based on the type of rock, such as whether the rock can absorb the fluid or cannot absorb the fluid. In the instance where the rock can absorb the fluid (e.g., poro-elastic rock), the pressure of the fluid can apply force onto the rock, and the fluid itself can seep into the rock (e.g., there may be fluid transfer from the fracture into the rock).
Regarding Claim 5: V in view of J disclose the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the fluid comprise a compressibility, or a density of the fluid, or combinations thereof.
V [0020] “the simulation may couple the respective components for continuity of any one, any combination, or all: fluid kinematics, pressure, density, flow rate, or mass. The respective components may be represented in various ways, such as one or more equations, models, etc.”
Regarding Claim 6: V in view of J disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising inputting into the mechanical model one or more known or assumed characteristics of one or more surface components acting upon the fluid.
V discloses subsurface components that connect the subsurface fracture with the surface components acting on the fluid.
V [0034] “example wellbore models include, without limitation, any one, any combination, or all of: 1D laminar pipe (with or without friction); 1D turbulent pipe flow (with or without friction), 1D transition from laminar to turbulent flow (with or without friction), with compressible or incompressible fluid flow.”
V [0036] “Including a wellbore with a casing and a wellbore without a casing. In the instance of the wellbore with a casing, a discrete number of perforations (e.g., holes in the casing) may be modeled. In the instance of the wellbore without a casing, perforations through the wellbore may likewise be modeled. In such an instance, the fluid may apply pressure through the entire wellbore, with perforations being modeled along the entire wellbore. In this regard, the wellbore-perforation interface is distributed throughout the entire wellbore (e.g., mapped to a grid of discrete points on the surface of the wellbore).”
V does not disclose one or more known or assumed characteristics of one or more surface components acting upon the fluid.
However, J discloses one or more known or assumed characteristics of one or more surface components acting upon the fluid.
J [Column 4: Lines 9-14] “A first pipe 42 is also indicated by the numeral 1 in a circle and reaches from the surface through the top 21 of the tubing 20 down inside of the tubing and into and through the top 26 of the LDC. Thus, control or pump liquid, such as oil, can be delivered into, and withdrawn from, the space A through the first pipe 42.”
J [Column 5: Lines 49-51] “The first pipe has a control choke 44 built in for purposes of controlling the flow from the pump 74 into the first pipe and to the LDC.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that connecting the wellbore and pipes of V with the control choke of J would yield a completed system of transferring fluid from an subsurface fracture to the surface and vice versa as well as an improved system which the control choke is used to control the flow of the fluids moving between the fracture and the surface (See V [0017] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 7: V in view of J disclose the method of claim 6 per claim 6.
V does not disclose wherein at least one of the one or more surface components comprises a choke, a shut-in valve, or a turbine, or combinations thereof.
However, J discloses wherein at least one of the one or more surface components comprises a choke.
J [Column 4: Lines 9-14] “A first pipe 42 is also indicated by the numeral 1 in a circle and reaches from the surface through the top 21 of the tubing 20 down inside of the tubing and into and through the top 26 of the LDC. Thus, control or pump liquid, such as oil, can be delivered into, and withdrawn from, the space A through the first pipe 42.”
J [Column 5: Lines 49-51] “The first pipe has a control choke 44 built in for purposes of controlling the flow from the pump 74 into the first pipe and to the LDC.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that connecting the wellbore and pipes of V with the control choke of J would yield a completed system of transferring fluid from an subsurface fracture to the surface and vice versa as well as an improved system which the control choke is used to control the flow of the fluids moving between the fracture and the surface (See V [0017] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 8: V in view of J disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising calibrating the model against a measured flow performance of a fracture.
V [0025] “In particular, the initial selection of the respective model(s) may depend on a current operation (or a current stage) of the simulation. Responsive to a trigger indicative to change one or more of the models (e.g., transition to a new stage), one or more of the models are changed for the simulation. The trigger may be responsive to a change in one or more parameters of the simulation. For example, responsive to changing the fluid being pumped into the wellbore (e.g. from water (used in one pumping stage) to a proppant including sand (used in a subsequent pumping stage)), one or more of the components used in the simulation may be changed to different components (e.g., the perforation component (which does not consider erosion effects) used in the simulation may be changed to a different perforation component (which accounts for erosion effects)). Alternatively, the trigger may be responsive to determining that the simulation is unable to converge to a solution. For example, responsive to the inability to determine the fluid kinematics, a different component may be selected for any one of the components disclosed.”
V [0044] “The parameters from a respective stage may thus change the selection of the component(s) (e.g., change from a first perforation component to a second perforation component) for the respective stage and/or the values for the component(s) (e.g., the perforation component used in the simulation remains constant from one stage to the next; however, the variables used to implement the perforation component changes, such as the number of perforation and/or the geometry of the perforations). In particular, responsive to a section's proximity to an existing fracture, the simulation for simulating the respective stage for the section may select a different component for the fracture component. In this regard, when transitioning from one stage to another, the simulation may change the operating parameters. Responsive to the change in the operating parameter(s), the simulation may thus change one or both of: the component(s) used in the simulation; or the parameters used by the component(s) in the simulation.”
V [0039] “Simulator 202 is configured to simulate the fluid flow, including determining one or more aspects of the fluid flow. Model change trigger identifier 204, discussed further with regard to FIG. 4, is configured to identify a trigger which results in a change to a respective model (e.g., new model being selected for the simulation and/or new variables for the currently used models). Further, model change selector 206 may tailor the selection of the different components for the simulation based on one or more criteria, including any one, or both of the following: current circumstances of the simulation (e.g., the component is tailored to the current fluid used and/or to current configuration, etc.); or desired complexity (e.g., model change selector 206 tailors the selection based on computational capability of the system).”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2020/0380186 A1, hereafter V in view of U.S. Patent 4,234,294 A, hereafter J. further in view of U.S. Patent Application U.S. 2021/0332684 A1, hereafter M.
Regarding Claim 4: V in view of J further in view of M disclose the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the fracture comprise
V and J do not disclose one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the fracture comprise a lens radius, or a fracture width of the fracture, or combinations thereof.
However, M discloses one or more of the known or assumed characteristics of the fracture comprise a lens radius, or a fracture width of the fracture, or combinations thereof.
M [0076] “determining stress factors affecting a tortuous fracture geometry within the subsurface formation surrounding the portion of the wellbore; calculating a radius of curvature representing the tortuous fracture geometry near the portion of the wellbore, based on the stress factors; and determining the volume of tortuosity along the portion of the wellbore, based on the radius of curvature and the average porosity of the subsurface formation along the portion of the wellbore. The stress factors may include the fluid injection rate, a fluid viscosity, and a stress ratio of maximum to minimum stresses affecting the tortuous fracture geometry near the portion of the wellbore.” The examiner notes that the fracture geometry reads on the claimed fracture width.
V, J, and M are analogous in the art because they all pertain to the topic of subsurface fractures.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that combining the references of V and M would create an improved system such that incorporating the calculations of the radius and volume of the fracture geometry of M to the mechanical model of V would generate more accurate predictions of fluid flow.
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure
U.S. Patent Application U.S. 2021/0190665
Javier Menéndez, Falko Schmidt, Jorge Loredo, "Comparing Subsurface Energy Storage Systems: Underground Pumped Storage Hydropower, Compressed Air Energy Storage and Suspended Weight Gravity Energy Storage", E3S Web Conf. 162 01001 (2020) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016201001 (Year: 2020)
T. Spitz, H. Chalmers, F. Ascui, L. Lucquiaud, Operating Flexibility of CO2 Injection Wells in Future Low Carbon Energy System, Energy Procedia, Volume 114, 2017, Pages 4797-4810, ISSN 1876-6102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1619.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-8533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00-4:00.
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://uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiner’s fax phone number (571) 272-8533.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published a applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
STT
/SCOTT THANH BINH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights