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 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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. Under Prong 1 analysis claims 1 and 15 contain an abstract idea, namely the “defining” and “determining” steps. However, under Prong 2 analysis this abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by the recited additional elements, because claims 1 and 15 recited steps of “loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases” which is performing specific steps of loading and unloading rock samples under specific effective stress conditions for determining an in situ permeability.
Claims 1 and 15 are therefore deemed patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 2-14 and 16-21 are dependent claims of claims 1 and 15 and they are directed to the practical application of the parent claim, so they are also patent eligible under 35 USC 101, so dependent claims 2-14 and 16-21 are also eligible under 101.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026, with respect to pending claims 1-21 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments are persuasive with respect to the 101 rejection but are not persuasive with respect to the 103 rejection. A new ground of rejection is made in view of prior art and Shi (CN109238938), hereinafter Shi. See below rejection for full detail.
The Applicant argues (page 13, line 12 through, page 14, line 5):
“Qiao fails to teach or suggest at least limitations (b) and (c). In fact, Qiao teaches non-monotonic effective stresses. Effective stress may be computed from a confining stress (σc), pore pressure (pₚ), and a Biot coefficient (ß) using Equation (1): σε = - ßpₚ.
See originally-filed specification at par. [0028]. Considering Table 1 of Qiao, computing effective stress with an assumed Biot coefficient ß = 0.4 yields the curve shown in Fig. A below.
Considering Fig. A, it is shown that the sequence of PPCS pairs taught by Qiao results in non-monotonic effective stress. See Qiao, Table 1 and paragraph below on p. 195. It then follows that Qiao fails to teach or suggest loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases, as limitation (c) requires.”
The Examiner agrees with assertion above, that Qiao reference does not teach “loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases”. (The Examiner appreciates the Applicant producing Fig. A from the equation relating effective stress to confining stress, pore pressure, and the Biot coefficient, and from the discussion of Table 1 in the Qiao reference.)
However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of prior art Shi (CN109238938).
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 1-2, 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao “Determination of Biot’s Effective-Stress Coefficient for Permeability of Nikanassin Sandstone”, hereinafter Qiao, in view of Wang “Effective Stress Law for the Permeability and Deformation of Four Porous Limestones”, hereinafter Wang, and Shi (CN109238938), hereinafter Shi.
Regarding Claim 1, Qiao “Determination of Biot’s Effective-Stress Coefficient for Permeability of Nikanassin Sandstone”, discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, from a subterranean region of interest, a rock sample having a rock type (Page 194, Fig. 1, map showing locations where the block samples were collected);
defining a sequence of pore pressure, confining stress (PPCS) pairs (Fig. 4, Table 1, where confining stress corresponds to the 10, 20 and 30 MPa from left column corresponds to the parameters of pore pressure for instance: confining stress 10 MPA corresponds to the 2MPa of Pore Pressure; form the Fig. 4, where confining stress corresponds to the 10 MPa and pore pressure -2 MPa (pair), and (confining stress 10 MPa and Pore pressure 2 MPa , second pair)) such that a sequence of effective stresses [monotonically increases or monotonically decreases] change (“sequency of permeabilities”, permeability changes with effective stress, see page 195, left col. Line 4-6, where estimate the Biot’s coefficient alpha on V sample and H-sample, a number of permeability measurements were conducted under different combination of confining stress and pore pressure (see Table 1 where sequence of the confining stress and pore pressure) data for determination for the permeabilities, e.g., permeability changes with effective stress);
subjecting the rock sample to the sequence of PPCS pairs by:
determining, using a computer processor, a sequence of permeabilities following the rock sample being subjected to the sequence of PPCS pairs (Fig. 4, Table 1, Page 195, right col. Lines 22-28, where second test run which refers the variation in permeability with respect to the change in confining pressure only, can be deduced from equation 2, as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
35
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
determining, using the computer processor, a relationship between the sequence of PPCS pairs and the sequence of permeabilities (Fig. 4, Table 1, Page 195, right col. Lines 22-28, where second test run which refers the variation in permeability with respect to the change in confining pressure only, can be deduced from equation 2, as follows
PNG
media_image1.png
35
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
determining, using the computer processor, a parameter using the relationship and a permeability model, wherein the permeability model comprises the parameter(Page 193, Summary: where effective-stress lay us defined as s eff=sc-as
where sc, sp a total confining stress and fluid pore pressure, K is permeability).
Qiao does not disclose effective stresses monotonically increases or monotonically decreases; loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases;
determining, using the computer processor, an in situ permeability for an in situ rock in the subterranean region of interest using, at least in part, the parameter and the
permeability model, wherein the in situ rock is of the rock type.
Shi discloses effective stresses monotonically increasing or monotonically decreasing (page 9, lines 19-30, where reservoir pore pressure during the actual exploitation process degradation by stress into increasing the confining pressure, ensures the core confining pressure is the change in effective stress in the test process is equivalent to effective stress pore pressure in the descending process of gas extraction process); (Page 9, lines 30-35, where two method are assumed reservoir pressure, reservoir vertical effective stress with decreasing linearly increased reservoir pore pressure in the experiment are respectively through fixed orifice pressure increase reduces the pore pressure to simulate the linear increase stress of confining pressure and fixing pressure. actual stress path reservoir rock of the two kinds of conventional stress sensitive experimental method and field actual during the development process e.g., linear increase stress is considered as monotonically increasing);
loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases (Page 9, lines 30-35, where two method are assumed reservoir pressure, reservoir vertical effective stress with decreasing linearly increased reservoir pore pressure in the experiment are respectively through fixed orifice pressure increase reduces the pore pressure to simulate the linear increase stress of confining pressure and fixing pressure. actual stress path reservoir rock of the two kinds of conventional stress sensitive experimental method and field actual during the development process e.g., linear increase stress is considered as monotonically increasing); (page 18, lines 28-32, where fourth pressure sensor 27 and the fifth pressure sensor 35 record data calculating the point of the effective stress of the three principal stress directions. then drawing the permeability relation curve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide for loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases, and reveals stress-release effects decreases as taught by Shi into Qiao in order to predict and stabilize of property determination.
Wang discloses determining, using the computer processor, an in situ permeability for an in situ rock in the subterranean region of interest using, at least in part, the parameter and the permeability model (Page 4716, right col. where change of permeability k with respect to changes in confining pressure Pc and pore pressure Pp:
PNG
media_image2.png
50
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where effective stress coefficient k for permeability:
PNG
media_image3.png
51
199
media_image3.png
Greyscale
e.g., the effective stress is parameter) wherein the in situ rock is of the rock type (Page 9, Fig. 7, where Permeability as a function of confining pressure for three different pore pressures for (a) Leltha, (b) Thala, (c) Purbeck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to determine an in situ permeability for an in situ rock in a subterranean region, as taught by Wang into Qiao in order to more efficiently and faster analyze geographic properties with different effective stress behavior.
Regarding Claim 2, Qiao and Shi and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, further Qiao disclose wherein the rock sample comprises source rock (Page 193, col. Right, Testing and Measuring Method: where Nikanassin sandstone samples).
Regarding Claim 11, Qiao and Shi and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, further Qiao disclose wherein the parameter comprises a Biot coefficient (Page 195, left hand column: Estimation of Biot’s Coefficient alpha for Permeability).
Regarding Claim 12, Qiao and Shi and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, further Qiao disclose wherein determining the relationship and determining the parameter comprises:
for each unique pore pressure (-2MPa, 3 MPa, 5 MPa) among the sequence of PPCS pairs (Fig. 4, for each pore pressure (for 3 MPa pore pressure the 10MPa, 20MPa of the confining Stress and for 15 MPa pressure corresponds (20MPa and 30 MPa pairs)):
fitting a linear line to confining stresses(see Fig. 4 linear line of confining stress) versus a natural logarithm of the sequence of permeabilities associated to each unique pore pressure, and determining a slope from the linear line (Fig. 3, where linearly representation sigma c=10, 20, and 30 MPa corresponds to the a natural logarithm of sequence of permeability’s: [-3], [-2.4], [-2.1], [-1.4],[ -1], [Log, k] and pore pressure);
determining the parameter as an average slope from a plurality of the determined slopes (Figs.5 and 6, Page 196, left col., lines 21-22, where average Boit’s coefficient alpha for H-sample was 0.174).
Regarding Claim 13, Qiao and Shi and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, further Qiao discloses wherein determining the relationship and the parameter comprises:
for each unique PPCS difference among the sequence of PPCS pairs (Fig. 4, where confining stress represents 3 linear pairs and one of three values, each difference is unique).
Qiao and Shi do not disclose:
fitting a linear line to pore pressures versus a natural logarithm of the sequence of permeabilities associated to each unique PPCS difference, and determining an intercept from the linear line;
fitting a new linear line to each unique PPCS difference and the intercept for a plurality of the unique PPCS differences; and
determining the parameter as a slope of the new linear line.
Wang discloses:
each unique PPCS difference among the sequence of PPCS pairs (Fig. 7(a), where Pc in 7-11MPa, 11-13MPa for Pp= 2.6MPa corresponds to the difference in sequency or PPCS pairs also see for Pp=3.6MPa, where Pc= 8-10MPa and so on…, e.g., each PPCS is unique difference, also see values for Fig. 7, (b-d)).
fitting a linear line to pore pressures versus a natural logarithm of the sequence of permeabilities associated to each unique PPCS difference, and determining an intercept from the linear line (See Fig. 7 (a-d) where permeabilities as a versus a natural logarithm of the sequence associated to each unique PPCS difference);
fitting a new linear line to each unique PPCS difference and the intercept for a plurality of the unique PPCS differences (Fig. 7, (a), where intercept for Pc =[7-11] MPa for pressure 2.6 MPa intercept with Pc=[8-10]MPa, for pressure Pp=3.6 MPa); and
determining the parameter as a slope of the new linear line (page 4716, right col., lines 5-10, where change of permeability k with respect to changes in confining pressure PC and pore pressure Pp can be written as
PNG
media_image4.png
57
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to fitting a new linear line to each unique PPCS difference, as taught by Wang Journal in combination of Qiao and Wang in order to visually represented the hydromechanical data to faster analyze geographic properties in different locations and with different type of limestones.
Regarding Claim 14, Qiao and Shi and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein determining the relationship and the parameter comprises:
assuming a first parameter;
fitting an exponential line to the sequence of effective stresses and the sequence of permeabilities; and
determining a second parameter from the exponential line.
Wang discloses:
assuming a first parameter line (page 4716, right column, lines 5-10, where change of permeability k with respect to changes in confining pressure PC and pore pressure Pp can be written as
PNG
media_image4.png
57
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where the effective stress coefficient k for permeability is given by
PNG
media_image5.png
46
199
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
fitting an exponential line to the sequence of effective stresses and the sequence of permeabilities (Fig. 8. (a-d), where exponential line, where K=0.22, 0.31, for b) k=4.9,5.4, 7.8 is effective stresses coefficient and permeability, see right col. lines 23-28, where slope to increase with decreasing permeability and increasing Terzaghi effective stress and Fig. 9a; and
determining a second parameter from the exponential line (Where the effective stress coefficient k for permeability is given by
PNG
media_image5.png
46
199
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to fit an exponential line to the sequence of effective stresses, as taught by Wang in combination of Qiao and Shi in order to visually represent the hydromechanical data for faster analysis of geographic properties with different effective stress behavior.
Regarding Claim 21, Qiao and Shi and Wang disclose the method of claim 1 and further disclose wherein subjecting the rock samples to the sequence of PPCS pairs reduces permeability hysteresis. As discussed in paragraph [0034] of the present specification, permeability hysteresis is a phenomenon which is avoided during a test if only loading or only unloading occurs. As the method of Qiao and Shi and Wang discussed above includes only loading or only unloading, there is a prima facie expectation that this will result in the reduction of permeability hysteresis compared to other methods (where both loading and unloading are carried out, for instance).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao, in view of Shi and Wang as applied above, and further in view of Zang et al (US Pub. 20230168173A1), hereinafter Zang, and Karimi Vajargah et al., (US Pub. 20190292908A1), hereinafter Vajargah.
Regarding Claim 4, Qian, Shi, and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose further comprising:
determining a hydrocarbon production rate based, at least in part, on the in situ permeability; and
determining a production management plan based, at least in part, on the hydrocarbon production rate.
Zang discloses determining a hydrocarbon production rate based, at least in part, on the in situ permeability (para 0084, where the permeability (e.g., stress-dependent permeability) is determined for the core sample 106, a hydrocarbon production rate from a reservoir from which the sample 106 came can be predicted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide hydrocarbon production rate, as taught by Zang in combination with Qiao, Shi, and Wang in order to enhance recovery efficiency and increase flow rate.
Vajargah discloses determining a production management plan based, at least in part, on the hydrocarbon production rate (para [0039], where reservoir management, assign a global drilling and completion score to a well which considers parameters such as wellbore placement, days to drill and complete, hydrocarbon production rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to determine a production management plan, as taught by Vajargah in combination of Qiao, Shi, and Wang in order to provide operational, economic, and strategic benefits and reduce operational costs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Shi and Wang as applied above, and further in view of Liu (CN114323910A), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 5, Qiao, Shi, and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the rock sample, but do not disclose further comprising:
cutting the rock sample;
drying the rock sample; and
pre-stressing the rock sample.
Liu discloses cutting the rock sample (Page 2, lines 12-14, where the structural surface sample edge in the cutting sliding process, which will cause the test result is difficult to quantize);
drying the rock sample (Page 3, lines, 36-39, Step1, where collecting the fault mud sample, weighing a part of the fault mud sample, weighing and putting into a drying box, drying for 24h and then weighing, obtaining the water content of the fault mud sample according to the obtained difference, the water content in the example is 16%, then drying); and
pre-stressing the rock sample (Page 3, lines 1-5, where setting the loading rate as the fixed displacement loading, converting the h6 into the time t0 applied by the pre-stress, controlling the thickness of the soft interlayer of the test piece after the pre-stress loading by the control time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide cutting, drying, and pre-stressing the rock sample, as taught by Liu in combination of Qiao, Shi, and Wang in order to more efficiently inspect and characterize the material and protect sample sticking.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Shi and Wang as applied above, and further in view of Santagati et al., (US Pub.20210010922A1), hereinafter Santagati.
Regarding Claim 6, Qiao, Shi, and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the rock sample is subjected to the sequence of PPCS pairs using a hydrostatic permeability system.
Santagati discloses the rock sample is subjected to the sequence of PPCS pairs using a hydrostatic permeability system (para [0051], where sample was then loaded to the first one of the required states of stress (hydrostatic or triaxial) and the permeability (k) is measured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to subject the rock sample to the sequence of PPCS pairs using a hydrostatic permeability system as taught by Santagati in the combination of Qiao, Shi, and Wang in order to more accurately detect the location data for the particular area/region.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Shi and Wang as applied above, and further in view of Chen et., al (US Pub. 20190234859A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 7, Qiao, Shi, and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein pore pressures among the sequence of PPCS pairs are selected to minimize Knudsen diffusion.
Chen discloses wherein pore pressures among the sequence of PPCS pairs are selected to minimize Knudsen diffusion (Abstract, where lower pore pressure the permeability is impacted by both mechanical deformation of the rock and the Knudsen diffusion, by subtracting the permeability with higher pore pressure from the one with lower pore pressure, the impact of Knudsen diffusion and the mechanical deformation of the rock can be determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to pore pressures among the sequence of PPCS pairs are selected to minimize Knudsen diffusion as taught by Chen in combination of Qiao, Shi, and Wang in order to improve accuracy of permeability measurements and accurate characterization of tight/shale formation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Shi, Wang, and Chen as applied above, and further in view of Wang (CN 104535472A), hereinafter Wang “472 and Guo (CN110470585A), hereinafter Guo.
Regarding Claim 8, Qiao, Shi, Wang, and Chen disclose the method of claim 7, but do not disclose wherein the pore pressures among the sequence of PPCS pairs are greater than 10 megapascals.
Wang “472 discloses the pore pressures among the sequence of PPCS pairs are in megapascals (para [0053], where confining pressure and pore pressure, which is capable of obtaining rock stress difference A, Ao = -, O is the confining pressure, is the pore pressure, the unit is MPa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide pore pressures among the sequence of PPCS pairs, as taught by Wang ‘472 in combination of Qiao, Shi, Wang, and Cheng in order to provide better understanding the subsurface pressure regime, and to optimize the extraction process and avoid hazard.
Guo discloses the effective stress/(pore pressures) are greater than 10 megapascals (determine the experimental maximum horizontal well effective principal stress 25.5MPa, effective minimum horizontal principal stress 17.5MPa, the vertical effective stress is 21.5MPa), e.g., effective stress inversely corresponds to the difference between sequence of PPCS pairs and pore pressure, the effective stress decreases the pore pressure increase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the effective stress above 10 megapascals, as taught by Guo in combination of Qiao, Wang, Shi, and Cheng in order to provide more safety and stability of test, increase energy absorption capacity, and stabilize structures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Shi and Wang as applied above, and further in view of Yang “A modified pressure-pulse decay method for determining permeabilities of tight reservoir cores”, hereinafter Yang.
Regarding Claim 9, Qiao, Shi, and Wang disclose the method of claim 1 but do not disclose wherein determining the sequence of permeabilities comprises a pressure pulse decay method.
Yang discloses determining the sequence of permeabilities comprises a pressure pulse decay method (Abstract, where determining permeabilities of tight reservoir cores; modified pressure-pulse decay (PPD) method is proposed and tested for permeability measurement of tight cores see Page 240, right col. Para 4, Determining of permeability from experimental data, further see 4.1 Application of the OC-PPD method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the sequence of permeabilities comprising a pressure pulse decay, as taught by Yang in combination of Qiao, Shi, and Wang in order to reduce the error in measurements and more efficiently provide the measurements.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Shi, Wang, and Yang as applied above, and further in view of Georgi et al., (US Pub.20180364142A1), hereinafter Georgi.
Regarding Claim 10, Qiao, Wang, Shi, and Yang disclose the method of claim 9, further Qiao discloses wherein the pressure pulse decay method comprises:
obtaining a permeability-pressure model (Page 4716, right col. where change of permeability k with respect to changes in confining pressure Pc and pore pressure Pp:
PNG
media_image2.png
50
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where effective stress coefficient k for permeability:
PNG
media_image3.png
51
199
media_image3.png
Greyscale
e.g., the effective stress is parameter) wherein the in situ rock is of the rock type (Page 9, Fig. 7, where Permeability as a function of confining pressure for three different pore pressures for (a) Leltha, (b) Thala, (c) Purbeck )
subjecting a test sample to a PPCS pair (See Fig. 4, where pore pressure and confining Stress, page 196, left col. where permeability values, the pore-pressure and confining-pressure data were plotted).
Qiao, Wang, Shi, and Yang do not disclose:
generating a pressure pulse;
determining a first transient pressure due to the pressure pulse;
determining a second transient pressure due to the pressure pulse; and
determining a permeability by fitting, in part, the first transient pressure and the second transient pressure to the permeability-pressure model.
Georgi discloses generating a pressure pulse (para [005], where a pulse-decay permeability (PDP) experiment is performed on a core sample retrieved from a formation. The PDP experiment includes flowing fluid through the core sample in a sealed enclosure. In response to flowing the fluid through the core sample, a change in fluid pressure is measured over time, e.g., a pulse-decay permeability the same technique as a generating a pressure pulse. Pulse decay permeability is method used to measure permeability by generating a pressure pulse (a sudden increase in pressure) e.g., a pulse-decay permeability the same technique as a generating a pressure pulse. Pulse decay permeability is method used to measure permeability by generating a pressure pulse (a sudden increase in pressure));
determining a first transient pressure due to the pressure pulse (Fig. 2B, # 205 (downstream) para [0012], where experimental pressure difference between the upstream and downstream reservoirs can be determined based on the pressure transient curves);
determining a second transient pressure due to the pressure pulse (Fig. 2B, # 203 (upstream), para [0012], where experimental pressure difference between the upstream and downstream reservoirs can be determined based on the pressure transient curves); and
determining a permeability by fitting, in part, the first transient pressure and the second transient pressure to the permeability-pressure model (para [0032], where FIG. 2C shows a dual-permeability system of matrix 201B and fracture 301, and FIG. 2D shows the corresponding pressure transient curves and para [0066], where FIG. 7B shows the logarithm of the normalized pressure transient curve against time at various gas leakage rates (refer to Eq. 41), and FIG. 7C shows the first derivative curves of the curves shown on FIG. 7B… calculate the apparent matrix permeability at various gas leakage rates. FIG. 7B shows that as gas leakage rate increases, the larger the bias in estimating the matrix permeability..).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide a permeability-pressure model, as taught by Georgi in combination of Qiao, Wang, Shi, and Yang in order to predict a reservoir's productivity and profitability.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Wang, Shi, and Heller “Experimental investigation of matrix permeability of gas shales”, hereinafter Heller.
Regarding Claim 15, Qiao discloses a system comprising:
a hydrostatic permeability system configured to subject a rock sample to a sequence of pore pressure, confining stress (PPCS) pairs by (Table 1, combination of confining stress and pore pressure, Table 2- results of the permeability measurements at confining and pore pressure); and
a computer system configured to:
determine a sequence of permeabilities following the rock sample being subjected to the sequence of PPCS pairs using the hydrostatic permeability system (Page 195, left hand column: Estimation of Biot’s Coefficient alpha for Permeability: the permeability k follows the effective-stress law (i.e., it can be expressed as a function of effective stress, which is given by:
PNG
media_image6.png
38
213
media_image6.png
Greyscale
And further for “sequence of permeabilities” see page 195, left col. Line 4-6, where estimate the Biot’s coefficient alpha on V-sample and H-sample, a number of permeability measurements were conducted under different combination of confining stress and pore pressure (see Table 1 where sequence of the confining stress and pore pressure) data for determination for the permeabilities, e.g., permeability changes with effective stress),
determine a relationship between the sequence of PPCS pairs and the sequence of permeabilities Fig. 4, Table 1, Page 195, right col. Lines 22-28, where second test run which refers the variation in permeability with respect to the change in confining pressure only, can be deduced from equation 2, as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
35
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
determine a parameter using the relationship and a permeability model, wherein the permeability model comprises the parameter (Page 193, Summary: where effective-stress is defined as s eff=sc-as
where sc , sp are total confining stress and fluid pore pressure, K is permeability).
Qiao does not disclose loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases;
receive the sequence of PPCS pairs,
determine an in situ permeability for an in situ rock in a subterranean region of interest using, at least in part, the parameter and the permeability model, wherein the in situ rock is of a rock type.
Shi discloses loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically decreases (Page 9, lines 30-35, where two method are assumed reservoir pressure, reservoir vertical effective stress with decreasing linearly increased reservoir pore pressure in the experiment are respectively through fixed orifice pressure increase reduces the pore pressure to simulate the linear increase stress of confining pressure and fixing pressure. actual stress path reservoir rock of the two kinds of conventional stress sensitive experimental method and field actual during the development process e.g., linear increase stress is considered as monotonically increasing); (page 18, lines 28-32, where fourth pressure sensor 27 and the fifth pressure sensor 35 record data calculating the point of the effective stress of the three principal stress directions. then drawing the permeability relation curve,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide for loading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically increases, or unloading the rock sample such that the sequence of effective stresses monotonically and reveals stress-release effects decreases as taught by Shi into Qiao in order to predict and stabilize of property determination.
Heller discloses receiving the sequence of PPCS pairs (Fig. 7, where permeability versus simple effective stress (effective stress monotonically decreasing), see Page 983, plug Permeability Measurements, for all six samples studied, permeability was measured at pore pressures from 1000-4000 psi (6.9 to 27.6 MPa) , confining pressures from 2000 to 8000 psi (13.8 to 55 MPa ) and simple effective stresses ranging from 1000 to 4000 psi (6.9 to 27.6 MPa , e.g., the pore pressure monotonically changes (increases)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the sequence of PPCS pairs, as taught by Heller into Qiao in order to more efficiently and faster analyze geographic properties with different effective stress behavior.
Wang discloses:
determine an in situ permeability for an in situ rock in a subterranean region of interest using, at least in part, the parameter and the permeability model, wherein the in situ rock is of a rock type (Page 4716, right col. where change of permeability k with respect to changes in confining pressure Pc and pore pressure Pp:
PNG
media_image2.png
50
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where effective stress coefficient k for permeability:
PNG
media_image3.png
51
199
media_image3.png
Greyscale
e.g., the effective stress is parameter) wherein the in situ rock is of the rock type (Page 9, Fig. 7, where Permeability as a function of confining pressure for three different pore pressures for (a) Leltha, (b) Thala, (c) Purbeck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to determine an in situ permeability for an in situ rock in a subterranean region, as taught by Wang in the Qiao in order to more efficiently and faster analyze geographic properties with different effective stress behavior.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Wang, Shi, and Heller as applied above, and further in view of Suryadi et al., (US Pub.20200104544A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Qiao, Wang, Heller, and Shi disclose the system of claim 15, but do not disclose further comprising a rock sample extraction tool configured to obtain the rock sample from the subterranean region of interest, wherein the rock sample is of the rock type.
Suryadi discloses comprising a rock sample extraction tool configured to obtain the rock sample from the subterranean region of interest, wherein the rock sample is of the rock type (para [0138], where the framework 600 (e.g., specific bit selection based on hole size, rock type, rock hardness, steering objectives).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide rock sample extraction tool, as taught by Suryadi in combination of Qiao, Wang, Heller, and Shi in order to more effectively obtain the specific rock type sample.
Regarding Claim 17, Qiao, Wang, Suryadi, Heller, and Shi disclose the system of claim 16, Qiao, Wang, Heller, and Shi do not disclose wherein the rock sample extraction tool comprises a coring system.
Suryadi discloses the rock sample extraction tool comprises a coring system (para [0171], where after coring, while drilling abrasive formations, when a PDC bit is run after a roller cone bit, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide coring system, as taught by Suryadi in combination of Qiao, Wang, Heller, and Shi in order to more effectively and easily obtain and analyze the specific rock sample.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao, in view of Wang, Heller, and Shi as applied above, and further in view of Liu (US Pub.20220214262A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 18, Qiao, Wang, Heller, and Shi disclose the system of claim 15, but do not disclose wherein the hydrostatic permeability system comprises:
a pressure generator configured to apply a confining stress to the rock sample;
and a gas pump system configured to apply a pore pressure to the rock sample, wherein the gas pump system comprises:
an upstream reservoir, and a downstream reservoir.
Liu discloses wherein the hydrostatic permeability (para [0001], where evolution of reservoir permeability owing to the stress change is used for predicting the hydrocarbon production from an unconventional reservoir and for managing the reservoir) system comprises:
a pressure generator configured to apply a confining stress to the rock sample (para [005], where a downstream pump connected to the downstream reservoir, a confining pump connected to the core container, a flow meter positioned upstream of the inlet, an inlet pressure sensor positioned proximate the inlet of the core sample); (para [006], where flow of gas from an upstream reservoir in the testing apparatus along an axial direction through the pressurized core sample into a downstream reservoir in the testing apparatus. During the steady-state flow, an inlet pressure at an inlet to the core sample, an outlet pressure at an outlet of the core sample); and
a gas pump system (Fig.1, # 32 and #42, para [0016], where an upstream pump 32; a downstream pump 42) configured to apply a pore pressure to the rock sample (para [0017], where upstream pump 32 and the downstream pump 42 may together be used to control fluid flow through the core sample 11, including the pressure and flow rate of the fluid through the core sample 11); (see para [0029], where flow of gas may be generated using an upstream pump in the testing apparatus to pump the gas from the upstream reservoir into the inlet of the core sample and a downstream pump in the testing apparatus to pump the gas from the outlet of the core sample to the downstream reservoir), wherein the gas pump system (Fig. 1) comprises:
an upstream reservoir, and a downstream reservoir (para [006], where flow of gas from an upstream reservoir in the testing apparatus along an axial direction through the pressurized core sample into a downstream reservoir in the testing apparatus. During the steady-state flow, an inlet pressure at an inlet to the core sample, an outlet pressure at an outlet of the core sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide a gas pump system, as taught by Liu in combination of Qiao, Wang, Heller, and Shi in order to increase measurement efficiency.
Regarding Claim 20, Qiao, Wang, Heller, Liu, and Shi disclose the system of claim 18, further Qiao discloses wherein the gas pump system houses helium (Fig. 2, Page 193, right column, where sandstone samples using helium gas, the sandstone samples was placed inside a coreholder … cylindrical vessel that was connected to a helium-gas tank).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao, in view of Wang, Shi, Heller, and Liu, as applied above and further in view of Georgi.
Regarding Claim 19, Qiao, Shi, Wang, Heller, and Liu disclose the system of claim 18, but do not disclose wherein the gas pump system is configured to emit a pressure pulse.
Georgi discloses the gas pump system is configured to emit a pressure pulse
(para [005], where a pulse-decay permeability (PDP) experiment is performed on a core sample retrieved from a formation. The PDP experiment includes flowing fluid through the core sample in a sealed enclosure. In response to flowing the fluid through the core sample, a change in fluid pressure is measured over time, e.g., a pulse-decay permeability the same technique as a generating a pressure pulse. Pulse decay permeability is method used to measure permeability by generating a pressure pulse (a sudden increase in pressure) e.g., a pulse-decay permeability the same technique as a generating a pressure pulse. Pulse decay permeability is method used to measure permeability by generating a pressure pulse (a sudden increase in pressure)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide a pressure pulse, as taught by Georgi in combination of Qiao, Shi, Wang, Heller, and Liu in order protect system flow from damage, and provide a smooth flow, reducing vibrations and noise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chao “Experimental study on strain behavior and permeability evolution of sandstone under constant amplitude cyclic loading unloading”, hereinafter Chao discloses (Fig. 4-7, page 454, 455, para 3.1, where cycle loading-unloading number, page 457, left col. W=W1+W3 where W1 and W3 are total work done by the axial stress and confining pressure during loading in MPa and lateral direction during unloading in MPa , respectfully S1 and S3 (pressures) are the stresses at each point of the stress strain curve of the loading stage in MPa curve of e1j and e1j strains at each point of the stress-strain curve of the unloading stage).
Yang (CN111272632A) discloses (S3, where slowly increase the confining of the confining pressure pump, the different confining as effective stress test point); ( S3, selecting the stress test point σ i are respectively 10MPa, 15MPa, 20MPa, 25MPa, 30MPa, 40MPa, and 50MPa of the confining pressure, confining pressure value slowly increases the confining stress experiment according to the selected point σ i;), (Claim 1, where S3, slowly increasing the confining of the confining pressure pump, the different confining as effective stress test point, initial penetrant rate increasing confining pressure to 10MPa the rock core holder through the confining pressure pump).
Yang (CN103837418) discloses (Abstract, where performing rheology test under fixed surrounding pressure on the burst rock test sample by a cyclic loading and unloading test method, gradually increasing the axial deviatoric stress, and repeating the rheology test loading and unloading steps until the test sample is burst).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
