DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “step 2…fabricating a low-permeability core…and fabricating a high-permeability core” and “step 5, preparing an artificial core: preparing a lightly oil-wet core …and preparing neutral and water wet cores.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether the step 2 and step 5 are drawn to preparing one artificial core or multiple artificial cores and of which type of core. The preamble recites “a method for preparing an artificial core” and renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2-4 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “low-permeability core,” “high-permeability core,” “slightly oil-wet core,” “evenly agitating,” and “rapid warming.” The claim is indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). Claims 2-4 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “according to a principle that the epoxy resin has a direct ratio with a specific surface,” “based on a method of controlling a core permeability,” “great influence on,” “plays an important role,” “according to a principle of physical simulation similarity criterion,” “special method of,” and “guarantees that.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Absolute terms introduce ambiguity regarding the physical or operational boundaries of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it uses vague relative prose instead of clear metes and bounds, leaving the exact numerical or proportional boundaries open to multiple interpretations. The instant specification fails to explicitly link a concrete, corresponding act or routine to every functional step. Claims 2-4 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “appropriate amount” and “appropriate thickness.” The claim is indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “fully agitating.” The claim is indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “known composition.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. The claim is indefinite because it introduces subjective ambiguity, fails to delineate the objective metes and bounds of the invention, and leaves the scope dependent on what a specific individual or prior art reference happens to know at any given time.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “above process.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. The claim is indefinite because it introduces subjective ambiguity on whether “above process” includes process (1) or (2), (1) and (2), or another combination of processes.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “guarantees.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Absolute terms introduce ambiguity regarding the physical or operational boundaries of the invention. The instant specification fails to explicitly link a concrete, corresponding act or routine to every functional step.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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:
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN-101762829-B - translation provided - hereinafter Li ‘829) in view of Li (US 11,192,824 B1 - hereinafter Li ‘824).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, in the field of methods for preparing artificial cores, Li ‘829 teaches the known technique wherein an artificial cemented rock core is manufactured according to the following requirements: (1) The pressurized manufacturing process of the pressure testing machine is adopted, and the artificial cemented rock core is manufactured with epoxy resin as the cementing agent; (2) According to the oil layer physical properties of the simulated oil field, select the reasonable particle size distribution variance σ of quartz sand, and under the condition that the production process conditions remain unchanged, adjust the median value of the quartz sand particle size distribution Control core permeability; (3) Core porosity control: make a series of cores under the pressure strength of 3, 5, 7.5, 10 and 15 MPa respectively, drill the cores after constant temperature curing, and analyze the change law of porosity with pressure; (4) Core wettability control: 1) Fabrication of weakly oil-wet cores: one-third of the amount of quartz sand used is treated with silicone oil to make the produced cores weakly oil-wet; Part of the 40-60, 60-100 and 100-200 mesh quartz sand is treated with silicone oil to prepare silicon oil sand; when making cores, one-third of the total sand weight is selected from coarse to fine, that is, firstly for 40-60 mesh Coarse sand is treated with silicone oil; wherein if the amount of sand processed does not reach one-third of the total sand amount, then 60-100 mesh sand is processed until the amount of sand processed accounts for one-third of the total sand amount; wherein the preparation process of silicone oil sand is as follows: dilute silicone oil with 1% sand weight with 20 times of petroleum ether, stir it evenly with quartz sand, volatilize at room temperature for 20 hours, put it into an electric blast drying oven and heat it to 180°C, and keep the temperature constant for 8 hours; and 2) Neutral and water-wet core production: use untreated quartz sand and epoxy resin, use 20% dibutyl phthalate as a toughening agent, and 7% ethylenediamine as a curing agent; wherein the core has a neutral to oil-wet property; (5) Core pore structure control: Take the low-permeability natural core, crush it into 20-40 mesh particles, mix the artificial core with sand, add 30% natural core debris evenly before forming, and pressurize the artificial core to make it, wherein the distribution of pore roar is close to that of natural core; wherein said rock core permeability is controlled to be under the condition of pressurization strength 3MPa and σ=0.8, selects A series of artificial cores were fabricated for grain size compositions of 2.1, 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3, 3.6, 3.9 and 4.2, respectively (claims 1-4; Translation, claims 1-4 and Pg 5-13).
Li ‘829 does not explicitly disclose a method for preparing an artificial core for petroleum geological exploration, comprising the following steps step 1, establishing a relation curve between a median grain diameter of quartz sand and a permeability, determining a type and a usage amount of epoxy resin, and preparing a cementing agent according to a principle that the epoxy resin has a direct ratio with a specific surface; step 2, based on a method of controlling a core permeability, preparing benchmark sand with quartz sand of different grain sizes in a certain ratio, fabricating a low-permeability core by adjusting a ratio of the benchmark sand to fine sand, and fabricating a high-permeability core by adjusting a ratio of the benchmark sand to coarse sand; step 3, separately and proportionally weighing quartz sand of different grain diameters and putting them into a magnetic tray, and manually mixing and agitating for later use, wherein since agitating frequency, times and uniformity degree for per capita have a great influence on porosity and permeability values of an artificial core during stirring, and a quartz sand mixing agitator is employed to avoid man-made nonuniform agitation; and step 5, preparing an artificial core: preparing a slightly oil-wet core by diluting silicone oil which is 10% by weight of a sand mold with 20 times petroleum ether, evenly agitating the diluted silicone oil with 40 to 70-mesh quartz sand, 70 to 140-mesh quartz sand and 140 to 200-mesh quartz sand, volatilizing at room temperature for 20 h, then putting the mixed quartz sand into an electrothermal blowing dry box, warming according to temperature programming of 60° C., 80° C., 100° C. and 120° C., each for 2 h and at intervals of 1 h, keeping a constant temperature at 120° C. for 2 h and then turning off the dry box for natural cooling to the room temperature, wherein the warming process guarantees that an oil film on the surface of sand grains does not burst during rapid warming; and preparing neutral and water-wet cores with untreated quartz sand and epoxy resin, 20% dibutyl phthalate as a flexibilizer and 7% ethanediamine as a curing agent, wherein the prepared artificial cores have neutral and slightly oil-wet properties.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Li ‘829 to comprise the steps of step 1, establishing a relation curve between a median grain diameter of quartz sand and a permeability, determining a type and a usage amount of epoxy resin, and preparing a cementing agent according to a principle that the epoxy resin has a direct ratio with a specific surface; step 2, based on a method of controlling a core permeability, preparing benchmark sand with quartz sand of different grain sizes in a certain ratio, fabricating a low-permeability core by adjusting a ratio of the benchmark sand to fine sand, and fabricating a high-permeability core by adjusting a ratio of the benchmark sand to coarse sand; step 3, separately and proportionally weighing quartz sand of different grain diameters and putting them into a magnetic tray, and manually mixing and agitating for later use, wherein since agitating frequency, times and uniformity degree for per capita have a great influence on porosity and permeability values of an artificial core during stirring, and a quartz sand mixing agitator is employed to avoid man-made nonuniform agitation; and step 5, preparing an artificial core: preparing a slightly oil-wet core by diluting silicone oil which is 10% by weight of a sand mold with 20 times petroleum ether, evenly agitating the diluted silicone oil with 40 to 70-mesh quartz sand, 70 to 140-mesh quartz sand and 140 to 200-mesh quartz sand, volatilizing at room temperature for 20 h, then putting the mixed quartz sand into an electrothermal blowing dry box, warming according to temperature programming of 60° C., 80° C., 100° C. and 120° C., each for 2 h and at intervals of 1 h, keeping a constant temperature at 120° C. for 2 h and then turning off the dry box for natural cooling to the room temperature, wherein the warming process guarantees that an oil film on the surface of sand grains does not burst during rapid warming; and preparing neutral and water-wet cores with untreated quartz sand and epoxy resin, 20% dibutyl phthalate as a flexibilizer and 7% ethanediamine as a curing agent, wherein the prepared artificial cores have neutral and slightly oil-wet properties as instantly claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control core permeability, porosity, texture and wettability (claims 1-4; Translation, claims 1-4 and Pg 5-13).
Li ‘829 does not specify a method further comprising step 4, adding a clay mineral, wherein a clay mineral in a natural rock core plays an important role on a structure and physical properties of the rock core.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (pore structure control; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Li ‘824 teaches the known technique wherein the pore throat distribution characteristic of the sintered core was improved by a way of compounding phosphate and clay minerals, such that the capillary pressure curve and the oil-water phase permeability curve of the sintered rock samples were similar with those of the natural cores, wherein this was the first time to approximate the pore structure of the artificial core to the natural cores (col 1, ln 10-45).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the disclosed in Li ‘829 by applying the known technique of adding a clay mineral, wherein a clay mineral in a natural rock core plays an important role on a structure and physical properties of the rock core as disclosed in Li ‘824 to the method disclosed in Li ‘829 with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Li ‘829 in view of Li ‘824 do not explicitly disclose a method wherein according to a principle of physical simulation similarity criterion, a certain amount of clay mineral is added to an artificial core; and a special method of adding the clay mineral is used to avoid the clay mineral from being covered with the epoxy resin nor (1) fully agitating the quartz sand with the epoxy resin in a certain proportion and putting a resulting mixture into a prepared evacuator; (2) saturating the mixture with a water-based clay suspension of a known composition such that the sand mold is in full contact with or adsorbs the clay in the water; then removing the water-based clay suspension, repeating the above process for a plurality of times, and finally drying the water-based clay suspension and weighing the residual clay to obtain an amount of the adsorbed clay; and (3) putting suction-filtered sand mold into a mold, and pressurizing and drying.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Li ‘829 in view of Li ‘824 to further comprise wherein according to a principle of physical simulation similarity criterion, a certain amount of clay mineral is added to an artificial core; and a special method of adding the clay mineral is used to avoid the clay mineral from being covered with the epoxy resin and (1) fully agitating the quartz sand with the epoxy resin in a certain proportion and putting a resulting mixture into a prepared evacuator; (2) saturating the mixture with a water-based clay suspension of a known composition such that the sand mold is in full contact with or adsorbs the clay in the water; then removing the water-based clay suspension, repeating the above process for a plurality of times, and finally drying the water-based clay suspension and weighing the residual clay to obtain an amount of the adsorbed clay; and (3) putting suction-filtered sand mold into a mold, and pressurizing and drying as instantly claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in order to approximate the pore structure of the artificial core to the natural cores and to control core permeability, porosity, texture and wettability (Li ‘829 claims 1-4; Translation, claims 1-4 and Pg 5-13; see also Li ‘824, col 1, ln 10-45).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, as applied to claim 1, Li ‘829 in view of Li ‘824 does not specify a method wherein during sand filling, sand is added each time in an appropriate amount and at an appropriate thickness to avoid local compaction, and the sand added each time needs to be carded and flattened nor wherein a drum, an agitating impeller and a main box of the agitator in step 3 are all controlled to rotate in different directions such that the quartz sand is agitated therein in a three-dimensional rotational manner, avoiding nonuniform manual agitation of the quartz sand and guaranteeing that porosities, permeability values, pore structures and rock grain size distributions at all points of the artificial core are respectively consistent.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Li ‘829 in view of Li ‘824 to further comprise wherein during sand filling, sand is added each time in an appropriate amount and at an appropriate thickness to avoid local compaction, and the sand added each time needs to be carded and flattened and wherein a drum, an agitating impeller and a main box of the agitator in step 3 are all controlled to rotate in different directions such that the quartz sand is agitated therein in a three-dimensional rotational manner, avoiding nonuniform manual agitation of the quartz sand and guaranteeing that porosities, permeability values, pore structures and rock grain size distributions at all points of the artificial core are respectively consistent as instantly claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control core permeability, porosity, texture and wettability (Li, claims 1-4; Translation, claims 1-4 and Pg 5-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brown (US 2003/0155098 A1) teaches the known technique of foundry sand grains are mixed substantially uniformly with thermally collapsible clay mineral particles, and a curable binder coats the sand grains and the thermally collapsible clay mineral particles to establish core and mold foundry shapes used to cast the metal part (abstract) but does not teach or suggest preparing an artificial core as instantly claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights