Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 3-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 Rejection.
Claims 7 and 8 are Objected Claims.
Claims 9-21 are Allowed Claims.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, filed (03/11/2026), with respect to pending claims 1, and 3-21 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments addressed to the 103 rejection are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to pending claim 1 have been considered but are
moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the
prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of prior art and Saleri et al (US Pat.8145427B1). See below rejection for full detail.
Based on the changes introduced by amendment of (03/11/2026) the 101 Rejections of Claims 1 and 3-21 are withdrawn.
Arguments
The Applicant argues (page 9, lines 4-9):
"As discussed above, it was agreed during interview that the amendments/remarks discussed during the interview commensurate with this response would overcome the 103 rejections. For example, the cited aspects of the prior art fail to teach or suggest "a reservoir pressure measured before production through the target well is started" and "a bottomhole pressure measured after a volumetric flow rate through the target well has reached a pre-determined flow rate and immediately before the target well is shut in".
A new grounds of rejection is made in view of prior art and Saleri et al (US Pat. 8145427 B1). See below rejection for full detail.
Claim Analysis – 35 USC § 101
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal register (Vol. 84 No.4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent eligible. In particular, in the Prong 1 analysis claims 1, 9 and 16 contain an abstract idea. However, even if they have an abstract idea they are integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 analysis. At Prong 2,
in claims 1, 9 and 16 the additional elements of the sensors in the target well integrate the recited abstract idea limitations into a particular practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites additional elements which include “sensors disposed within a target well”, which measures a bottomhole pressure…, which requires a particular sensor located in specific well, which is significant additional element.
Similar limitations are recited in claims 9 and 16.
Thus claims 1, 9 and 16 are deemed patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are also eligible under 101.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen “Inter-well interference and well spacing optimization for shale gas reservoir”, [hereinafter Chen] in view of Saleri et al (US Pat.8145427B1), [hereinafter Saleri].
Regarding Claim 1, Chen “Inter-well interference and well spacing optimization for shale gas reservoir” discloses a method comprising:
determining a base productivity index for a target well in a well system comprising a plurality of wells including the target well drilled in a subterranean zone from a surface (Page 302, Overview of the study area, where 136 horizontal wells were drilled and fractured, see Fig. 2) to a subsurface reservoir entrapping hydrocarbons (Fig. 7 (a)), the base productivity index based on reservoir pressure and based on bottomhole pressure of the target well, the base productivity index free of interference on production through the target well from flow through other wells in the plurality of wells (See page 307, 4.2);
determining a current productivity index for the target well, the current productivity index based on the reservoir pressure and based on the bottomhole pressure of the target well, the current productivity index affected by interference on production through the target well from flow through other wells in the plurality of wells (Fig. 7 (a) (see productivity index diagnosis after interference));
determining an interference modulus for the target well based on the current productivity index and the base productivity index for the target well (Page 307, 4.2); and
determining, using the interference modulus for the target well, a numerical effect, on the target well, of the flow through the other wells in the plurality of wells (Fig.1, fracture connection at different well spacing, e.g., is factor as spacing effect the production well; Abstract).
Chen does not disclose a reservoir pressure measured before production through the target well is started, and a bottomhole pressure measured after a volumetric flow rate through the target well has reached a pre-determined flow rate and immediately before the target well is shut in.
Saleri discloses a reservoir pressure measured before production through the target well is started, and a bottomhole pressure measured after a volumetric flow rate through the target well has reached a pre-determined flow rate and immediately before the target well is shut in (Claim 11, where determined by placing a pressure gauge in the producing well, measuring flowing bottom-hole pressure (p.sub.w) after the well has flowed at a stabilized rate, measuring a static pressure (p.sub.e) after a shut-in period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide reservoir pressure measured before production through the target well is started, and a bottomhole pressure measured after a volumetric flow rate through the target well has reached a pre-determined flow rate and immediately before the target well is shut in, as taught by Saleri into Chen in order to provide accurately assessing productivity of a petroleum reservoir and the potential for productivity gains.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen and Saleri discloses the method of claim 1, further Chen disclose wherein the base productivity index is determined from a field buildup well test conducted in a field in which the plurality of wells are drilled (see page 302 , left column, second paragraph ).( page 302, right col. Para 2, where development well spacing ranges from 400 m to 500 m. As more field test data (e.g. interference test, and micro-seismic monitoring) and production performance data; Page 303, left col., para 3.1, where The concept of fracture breakthrough was originated in the infilling test of shale gas wells in the United States. During the test, new well fracturing made the inter-well stress shadow increase).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Saleri, as applied above and further in view of Khan (US Pub.20150211339A1), hereinafter Khan.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen and Saleri discloses the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the base productivity index is determined from an Earth numerical model that computationally simulates a field in which the plurality of wells are drilled.
Khan disclose the base productivity index is determined from an Earth numerical model that computationally simulates a field in which the plurality of wells are drilled (para [0039], where a method to simulate a reservoir, the method comprising: providing a first model of a portion of earth containing a reservoir, the first model specifying parameters defining the reservoir; computing a first productivity index of the first model for a first set of data points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide base productivity index is determined from an Earth numerical model, as taught by Khan in combination of Chen and Saleri in order to provide a dynamic, high-resolution, and spatially comprehensive understanding of ecosystem health and potential carbon fixation.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Saleri, as applied above and further in view of Levitan (US Pub. 20110040536), [hereinafter Levitan].
Regarding Claim 5, Chen and Saleri discloses the method of claim 1.
Chen and Saleri do not disclose wherein the base productivity index and the current productivity index are each a productivity index, which is determined by: before producing through the target well, measuring the reservoir pressure in the
target well;
producing through the target well until a volumetric flow rate through the target
well stabilizes;
measuring the stabilized volumetric flow rate;
after the volumetric flow rate stabilizes, measuring the bottomhole pressure in the
target well; and
after measuring the bottomhole pressure in the target well, shutting in the target
well.
Levitan disclose before producing through the target well, measuring the reservoir pressure in the target well (para [0013], where a according to this approach, the well under analysis is flowed at a reasonable constant non-zero flow rate for some time, and is then shut-in for a period of time while the downhole pressure is measured, e.g., shut-in (not producing) and then measured the pressure);(para [0059], where in the shut-in test, the downhole pressure is measured over time, beginning prior to shutting-in the well);
producing through the target well until a volumetric flow rate through the target well stabilizes (para [0013], where the well under analysis is flowed at a reasonable constant non-zero flow rate for some time), (para [0059], where after a dramatic increase in well flow, such as opening the choke from a shut-in condition, preferably to a setting that produces a constant flow rate from the well);
measuring the stabilized volumetric flow rate (para [0013], where the well under analysis is flowed at a reasonable constant non-zero flow rate for some time, and is then shut-in for a period of time while the downhole pressure is measured);
after the volumetric flow rate stabilizes, measuring the bottomhole pressure in the target well (para [0013], where well under analysis is flowed at a reasonable constant non-zero flow rate for some time, and is then shut-in for a period of time while the downhole pressure is measured, e.g., the shut-in period time where flow rate is essentially constant, at zero(stabilizes)); and
after measuring the bottomhole pressure in the target well, shutting in the target well(para [0059], where in the shut-in test, the downhole pressure is measured over time, beginning prior to shutting-in the well and continuing after shut-in)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide after the volumetric flow rate stabilizes, measuring the bottomhole pressure in the target well as taught by Levitan in combination of Chen and Saleri in order to provide accurate and reliable data essential for effective reservoir management and well performance analysis.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen and Saleri and Levitan discloses the method of claim 5, further Chen disclose comprising determining the productivity index by dividing the volumetric flow rate by a difference between the reservoir pressure and the bottomhole pressure (Page 307, 4.2 Production performance analysis, where analyze inter-well interreference through production performance, a relatively intuitive approach is to analyze changes in production performance of a well before and after interference between it and adjacent wells. The productivity index PI is defined as follows
PNG
media_image1.png
62
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, e.g., pavg = average reservoir pressure and pw = flowing bottom-hole pressure).
Chen does not disclose the stabilized volumetric flow rate.
Saleri disclose the stabilized volumetric flow rate (Claim 11, where determined by placing a pressure gauge in the producing well, measuring flowing bottom-hole pressure (p.sub.w) after the well has flowed at a stabilized rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide stabilized volumetric flow rate as taught by Saleri into Chen in order to provide operational efficiency, equipment longevity, and maximum hydrocarbon recovery.
Objection
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 7:
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of having the steps of “determining the interference modulus for the target well comprises dividing the current productivity index by the base productivity index.”
Regarding Claim 8:
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of having the steps of: determining an increase in productivity of the target well in response to determining that the interference modulus is greater than one, or determining a decrease in the productivity of the target well in response to determining that the interference modulus is less than one, or determining an absence of a change in the productivity of the target well in response to determining that the interference modulus is equal to one.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 9 and 16:
Shaker et al (US Pub.20220259972A1) discloses determine a productivity index for multiples wells based on the include wellhead pressure, reservoir pressure, flow correlation (para [0036], where The PDHMS 140 may measure pressure, flow rates, or other attributes during the test and may provide the attributes to the productivity index generator 746. The productivity index generator 746 may determine a productivity index P.sub.LN for each individual lateral under non-commingled flow based on the real time pressure measurements from PDHMS 142, 144, 146 at each lateral and based on reservoir description parameters, well test conditions, or empirically correlated based on well test results. Well test conditions may include wellhead pressure, reservoir pressure, flow correlation, or the like);
Shaker does not disclose determine productivity index based on the bottomhole and reservoir pressure; target well into interference of the well system and target well without interference into well system and Shaker does not measure pressure of the well before shutting down the target well and reservoir pressure before producing hydrocarbons through the target well, also Shaker does not disclose stabilizing the volumetric flow rate of hydrocarbon production through the well.
The closest prior arts of Chen in view of Saleri teaches determining the productivity index from the reservoir pressure and bottom pressure, but do not teach determining a base productivity index for the target well using the first volumetric flow rate.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest of having the steps of: “determining a base productivity index for the target well using the first volumetric flow rate;
determining a current productivity index for the target well using the second volumetric flow rate;
determining an interference modulus for the target well from the current productivity index and the base productivity index;
determining, using the interference modulus for the target well, an effect, on the target well, of the flow through the other wells in the plurality of wells; and
providing the interference modulus”.
Claims 10-15 and 17-21 are allowable as being dependent from base claims 9 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights