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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in application 18/356,974.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
The rejection of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn due to Applicant amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Radwan (US 2021/0095187 A1).
As per independent Claims 1 and 10, Radwan discloses a method for mitigating particulate [barite] settling in a drilling fluid [mud], comprising (A system for mitigating particulate settling in a drilling fluid, comprising: a processor configured to perform operations of): obtaining, by measuring a viscosity of a first drilling fluid, a set of rheological data for the first drilling fluid having a composition, wherein the set of rheological data comprises a measured viscosity value; determining a thermal effect of the measured viscosity value; determining, based on the thermal effect, a predicted viscosity value for a second drilling fluid having a composition that is similar to the composition of the first drilling fluid; and determining an amount of a thermochemical fluid [ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) or sodium nitrite (NaNO2)] to add to the second drilling fluid (Para 0032-0034; Para 0041-0042, “One of ordinary skill in the art, with the benefit of this disclosure, will recognize the appropriate amount of crosslinking agent to include in a water-based hydraulic fracturing treatment fluid system of the embodiments described herein based on a number of factors, such as the temperature conditions of a particular application, the type of gelling agents selected, the molecular weight of the gelling agents, the desired degree of viscosification, the pH of the treatment fluid, and the like.”; and Para 0087, “Pilot test” to determine correct treatment fluid); adding the determined amount of the thermochemical fluid to the second drilling fluid, thereby increasing a temperature and a viscosity of the second drilling fluid such that settling of a particulate is mitigated (See at least Para 0011, “a sag control operation”; Para 0041-0042, and Para 0087).
As per Claims 2 (1) and 11 (10), Radwan discloses wherein the thermal effect is a temperature dependency of the measured viscosity value (See at least Para 0041-0042).
As per Claims 5 (1) and 14 (10), Radwan discloses wherein the thermochemical fluid comprises one or more of ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) and sodium nitrite (NaNO2) (See at least Para 0032, “In some embodiments, the ammonium-containing compound is ammonium chloride, and the nitrite-containing compound is sodium nitrite.”).
As per Claims 6 (1) and 15 (10), Radwan discloses wherein the thermochemical fluid is added to the second drilling fluid in amount ranging from 3 mol/dm3 to 5 mol/dm3 (See at least Para 0032 and Para 0041-0042, Equivalent range of supplement additive disclosed).
As per Claims 7 (1) and 16 (10), Radwan discloses wherein the first drilling fluid and the second drilling fluid are water-based drilling fluids (See at least Para 0007; Para 0011-0013; Para 0019, “aqueous-based fluids”; and Para 0087).
As per Claims 8 (1) and 17 (10), Radwan discloses wherein the particulate is barite (See at least Para 0023).
As per Claims 9 (1) and 18 (10), Radwan discloses wherein the amount of the thermochemical fluid is determined based on a quantity of the second drilling fluid, a heat capacity of the second drilling fluid, and a heat capacity of the thermochemical fluid (See at least Para 0032-0034; Para 0041-0042, and Para 0087).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radwan in view of Ansari et al (Ansari, S., Rashid, M.I., Waghmare, P.R. et al. Measurement of the flow behavior index of Newtonian and shear-thinning fluids via analysis of the flow velocity characteristics in a mini-channel. SN Appl. Sci. 2, 1787, 20201008).
As per Claims 3 and 12, Radwan fails to expressly disclose the functions used when determining a flow consistency index K and a flow behavior index n for the first drilling fluid according to the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
103
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the analogous art of Ansari discloses the use of Ostwald-de Waele’s power law function to describe the rheological behaviors of non-Newtonian fluids (see Pgs.2-3).
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the functions used when determining a flow consistency index K and a flow behavior index n for the first drilling fluid according to the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
103
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
as disclosed by Ansari in the system disclosed by Radwan, for the advantage of providing a method for mitigating particulate settling in a drilling fluid, with the ability to increase effectiveness of the method/system by incorporating a variety of functions necessary to determine rheological behaviors of the drilling fluid (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/16/2026, with respect to Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18, have been considered but are moot, based on the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
February 19, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629