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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below.
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining a borehole radius and a porosity value in a borehole (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity);
determining a rock brittleness index value from the porosity value (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
determining a breakdown overpressure radius from the rock brittleness index value and the borehole radius (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations);
determining a breakdown overpressure from the breakdown overpressure radius (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations); and
planning a fracking operation in a well based on the determined breakdown overpressure (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a reference borehole radius, a reference pore pressure, a reference tensile stress, a reference breakdown overpressure, and a reference rock brittleness index value in the borehole (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); and determining a reference breakdown overpressure radius from the reference breakdown overpressure, the reference pore pressure, and the reference tensile stress (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a constant value from the reference rock brittleness index value, the reference borehole radius, and the reference breakdown overpressure radius (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the constant value is used to determine the breakdown overpressure radius (merely further details of abstract limitations).
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining a rock sample from a core sampling system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), wherein at least one of the following is obtained from a laboratory measurement of the rock sample: a reference rock brittleness index value (merely further details of ineligible subject matter).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following is determined from the porosity value: a reference rock brittleness index value and a rock brittleness index value (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
Regarding claim 7, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following:
7. A non-transitory computer-readable memory comprising computer-executable instructions stored thereon that (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity), when executed on a processor, cause the processor to perform steps (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) comprising:
... (items similar to those of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following:
8. A system, comprising:
a core sampling system, configured to obtain a rock sample from a formation (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
a laboratory tool configured to analyze the rock sample, and configured to determine a reference rock brittleness index value from the rock sample (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity); and
a computer system operatively connected to the laboratory tool and a well logging tool (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions; not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions), configured to:
... (items similar to those of claim 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10 see the foregoing rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, see the foregoing rejection of claim 3.
12. The system of claim 8, further comprising obtaining a borehole radius, a pore pressure, and a tensile stress in the borehole (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
13. The system of claim 8, further comprising determining a pore pressure and a tensile stress in the borehole (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
14. The system of claim 8, further comprising obtaining at least one of the following in the borehole: the borehole radius, a pore pressure, a tensile stress, and a porosity value (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
15. The system of claim 8, further comprising obtaining a rock sample from a core sampling system (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity).
Regarding claim 16, see the foregoing rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, see the foregoing rejection of claim 6.
18. The system of claim 8, further comprising a fracking system (does not integrate into a practical application because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; not significantly more because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use).
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the computer system determines a fluid pressure value for the fracking system (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations).
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the computer system uses the breakdown overpressure value to determine the fluid pressure value (merely further details of abstract limitations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leem et al. (20180094514) is cited for disclosing a broad variety of geomechanical modeling surrounding the borehole, in conjunction with hydraulic fracturing, including accounting for brittleness index, porosity, and pressure (see paragraphs 39-45).
Zhao et al. (CN 108104804 A) is cited for disclosing a brittle shale fracture pressure prediction method that takes into account porosity (see paragraphs 8 and 11-23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights