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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 4A has a component labeled 402 that is not mentioned int the specification. Additionally, figures 4A and 4B should be labeled as prior art. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “or combinations thereof” is repeated twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-15 are allowable over the closest prior art reference by Zhu et al (CN 105869496 A, hereafter, Zhu).
As per claim 1, Zhu teaches the following:
“A microfluidic device to model subterranean fluid flow, the microfluidic device comprising: a mold of solid material,” para 1 of page 15;
“… the mold comprising: a field of pores and throats formed in the mold, the pores (7 in fig 2) are interconnected via the throats (6 in fig 2),”
“… and the pores have a larger cross-sectional area than the throats,”. Step 1 of Embodiment 1 of “A method for manufacturing visible micro pore structure simulation physical model” at page 17, states “… the throat radius is 10μm in this embodiment, pore throat ratio is 3, 2, 3 and 4.”
“… an interior channel formed in the mold, the interior channel at least partially traversing the field of pores and throats, the interior channel is in indirect fluid communication with the pores and throats,” figure 2;
“… a side channel formed in the mold, the side channel branching off from the interior channel into the field of pores and throats, the side channel in fluid communication with the pores and throats,” figure 2;
“… a first fluid port disposed in the microfluidic device, the first fluid port in direct fluid communication with a first end of the interior channel; and a second fluid port disposed in the microfluidic device, the second fluid port in direct fluid communication with one end of the peripheral channel,” figure 2.
Zhu fails to teach the peripheral and interior channel having larger cross-sectional area than the pores and throats.
As per claim 10, Zhu teaches the following:
“A microfluidic device to model subterranean fluid flow, the microfluidic device comprising: a mold of solid material,” para 1 of page 15;
“… the mold comprising: a field of pores and throats formed in the mold, the pores are interconnected via the throats,” figure 2;
“…and the pores have a larger cross-sectional area than the throats,” step 1 of Embodiment 1 of “A method for manufacturing visible micro pore structure simulation physical model” at page 17;
“… a peripheral channel formed in the mold, the peripheral channel tracing at least 50% of perimeter or circumference of the field of pores and throats, the peripheral channel in fluid communication with the pores and throats,” figure 2;
“… at least one interior channel of the plurality of interior channels coupled to a side channel through which the at least one interior channel communicates with the field of pores and throats of the field,” figure 2;
“… a first fluid port disposed in the microfluidic device, the first fluid port in direct fluid communication with a first end of a first interior channel; and a second fluid port disposed in the microfluidic device, the second fluid port in direct fluid communication with one end of the peripheral channel,” figure 2.
Zhu fails to teach the peripheral and interior channel having larger cross-sectional area than the pores and throats.
Claim 17 is 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.
As per claim 17, Zhu teaches the following:
“The method of claim 16, wherein: the reservoir fluid is supplied to the perimeter of the field of pores and throats via a peripheral channel that traces a majority of the perimeter,” figure 1 and 2; para 10 on page 15 (injection entrance 1);
Zhu fails to teach a fluid supplied to both ends of the peripheral channel.
Thus, the prior art of record mentioned above does not anticipate nor render obvious the allowed claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 16, 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zhu et al (CN 105869496 A, hereafter, Zhu), in further view of Lai et al (CN 113899878 A, hereafter, Lai).
As per claim 16, Zhu teaches the following:
“A method of mimicking or simulating fluid flow in a subterranean fluid system, the method comprising: supplying a reservoir fluid to at least 50% of a perimeter or circumference of a field of pores and throats formed in a microfluidic device,” figure 2 (injection entrance 1); para 10 on page 15;
Zhu does not teach supplying fluid into an interior channel.
However, Lai teaches the following:
“… and flowing a target fluid through an interior channel (liquid inlet 2 in figure 2) formed in the microfluidic device, the interior channel at least partially traversing the field of pores and throats, the interior channel in fluid communication with the pores and throats.”, para 5 on page 22.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhu with Lai’s liquid inlet in order to simulate and analyze the dialysis condition of oil and water in a shale reservoir, para 1 on page 21.
As per claim 18, Zhu teaches the following:
“The method of claim 16, wherein the reservoir fluid is supplied to the microfluidic device at a constant flow, a constant pressure, or combinations thereof,” para 4 of Example 3 on page 19.
As per claim 19, Zhu teaches the following:
“The method of claim 16, wherein: the reservoir fluid comprises a hydrocarbon oil; the target fluid comprises water, CO2, or combinations thereof; or combinations thereof,” para 3 and 4 of Example 3 on page 19.
As per claim 20, Zhu teaches the following:
“The method of claim 16, wherein the target fluid flows into the microfluidic device through a port on the microfluidic device and into the interior channel,” figure 2; and para 4 of Example 3 section at page 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tessalie A. Caze-Cortes whose telephone number is (571)270-3235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/TESSALIE A. CAZE-CORTES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights