DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7 July 2025 has been entered. Claims 2-6, 9, and 14 remain pending in the application. The Non-Final Office Action was mailed 11 April 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tibbles (2003/0216263) in view of Chittattukara (2017/0275517) and Crews (2006/0041028) (all cited previously).
Regarding independent claim 2, Tibbles discloses A method of applying a reactive viscoelastic surfactant (VES) based fluid (abstract “remove wellbore damage and near-wellbore damage in the form of coating formed from drilling and production-related operations ("filtercake")” with “chelating agent and enzyme systems in a viscoelastic surfactant (VES) matrix”), comprising:
providing the reactive VES-based fluid comprising … a surfactant (abstract “a viscoelastic surfactant (VES)” such as [0041] “In the Examples that follow the VES system most often used is N-cis-13-docosenoic-N,N,-bis(2-hydroxymethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride (a.k.a. N-erucyl-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride)”) and an inorganic oxidizer salt ([0066] “The fluids and techniques of the present Invention are applicable in numerous different environments, including:” [0073] “in conjunction with … dissolution components (e.g., an oxidizer)” such as [0025] “(4) VES, 5% (low temperature-optimized) ammonium persulfate, 28% K2-EDTA, 4% KCl”; ammonium persulfate is inorganic) through a wellbore into a subterranean formation, wherein:
a concentration of the surfactant in the reactive VES-based fluid is in a range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% (e.g., [0025] “FIG. 3 shows the effect of VES (5%)”; 5% clearly anticipates 0.1-10 wt%) and the surfactant comprises a zwitterionic or amphoteric surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, or a combination of cationic and anionic surfactants, wherein the zwitterionic surfactant comprises dihydroxyl alkyl glycinate, alkyl ampho acetate or propionate, alkyl amidoamine oxide, gemini VES, alkyl betaine, alkyl amidopropyl betaine, or alkylimino mono- or di-propionates derived from waxes, fats, or oils ();
a concentration of the inorganic oxidizer salt in the reactive VES-based fluid is in a range of 5 wt% to 25 wt% (e.g., [0025] “(4) VES, 5% (low temperature-optimized) ammonium persulfate, 28% K2-EDTA, 4% KCl”; 5% clearly anticipates 5-25 wt%)…; and
oxidizing organic material in the subterranean formation with the reactive VES-based fluid ([0037] “The common denominator of preferred embodiments (completion fluids) of the present Invention is they are specifically, though not exclusively, optimized to degrade/remove drilling filtercake” and e.g., [0005] “According to conventional teaching, the oxidizer and enzyme attack the polymer fraction of the filtercake”) as “novel completion fluids to break filtercake, either alone or in conjunction with other workover/completion/stimulation treatments” ([0017]), wherein a filter cake comprises the organic material ([0005] “the polymer fraction”), and wherein oxidizing the organic material comprises degrading the filter cake with the reactive VES-based fluid ([0037] “degrade/remove drilling filtercake”), and
…wherein the wellbore comprises an open hole wellbore ([0021] “The fluids and techniques of the present Invention are quite general and are operable in a variety of settings. These include … open hole”).
Regarding the VES surfactants, as above, Tibbles discloses “In the Examples that follow the VES system most often used is N-cis-13-docosenoic-N,N,-bis(2-hydroxymethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride (a.k.a. N-erucyl-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride)” ([0041]). N-erucyl-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride) is a cationic surfactant with the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
157
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Tibbles anticipates “the surfactant comprises a zwitterionic or amphoteric surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, or a combination of cationic and anionic surfactants, wherein the zwitterionic surfactant comprises dihydroxyl alkyl glycinate, alkyl ampho acetate or propionate, alkyl amidoamine oxide, gemini VES, alkyl betaine, alkyl amidopropyl betaine, or alkylimino mono- or di-propionates derived from waxes, fats, or oils.” Applicant may note that, as written, this limitation merely requires any cationic surfactant. Nevertheless, Applicant may also see Crews below.
Regarding the phthalic acid or salicylic acid organic compounds, Tibbles discloses “particularly preferred embodiments are fluids having these two components in a VES (viscoelastic surfactant) system. VES systems have numerous advantages--discussed at length in U.S. Patents incorporated by reference below--including that they are readily gelled, they can be disposed of more easily than guar and modified guar systems, they are more readily removed from subsurface formations. In addition, and of particular importance of the present Invention, VES systems create very low friction pressures compared with conventional carrier fluids” ([0017]) and “The use of VES for well treatment fluids has validated in numerous actual well treatments” ([0040]). Tibbles also discloses “In the Examples that follow the VES system most often used is N-cis-13-docosenoic-N,N,-bis(2-hydroxymethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride (a.k.a. N-erucyl-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyl ammonium chloride). In addition, the actual VES system used in the Examples contains 25% isopropanol to enhance VES stability at low temperatures. In some instances, a second VES system is used, referred to as VES1, and which consists of glyceryl esters of three different fatty acids, 23.5% erucyl (C22 with one double bond), 32% oleic (C18 with one double bond) and 44.5% linoleic (C18 with three double bonds separated by methylene groups) acids” ([0041]).
However, Tibbles fails to specify using phthalic acid, salicylic acid, or salts thereof.
Nevertheless, these are well-known and conventional additives for VES for oilfield systems. For example, Crews teaches “Fluids viscosified with viscoelastic surfactants (VESs)” (abstract) such as “VES viscosifiers used to clean up drilling mud filter cake” ([0069]) wherein “The viscoelastic surfactants suitable for use in this invention include, but are not necessarily limited to, non-ionic, cationic, amphoteric, and zwitterionic surfactants. Specific examples of zwitterionic/amphoteric surfactants include, but are not necessarily limited to, dihydroxyl alkyl glycinate, alkyl ampho acetate or propionate, alkyl betaine, alkyl amidopropyl betaine and alkylimino mono- or di-propionates derived from certain waxes, fats and oils. Quaternary amine surfactants are typically cationic, and the betaines are typically zwitterionic. The thickening agent may be used in conjunction with an inorganic water-soluble salt or organic additive such as phthalic acid, salicylic acid or their salts” ([0063]). Crews also teaches “c. more altered VES is required to break the gel when VES counterions or stabilizing agents are used, including, but not necessarily limited to, CaCl2, CaBr2, MgO, CaOH, NH4Cl, salicylate, naphthalene sulfonate, phthalate, and the like” ([0029]) and thus it appears the phthalic acid, salicylic acid, or their salts are understood to act as counterions or stabilizing agents for VES.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include VESs such as “dihydroxyl alkyl glycinate, alkyl ampho acetate or propionate, alkyl betaine, alkyl amidopropyl betaine and alkylimino mono- or di-propionates derived from certain waxes, fats and oils” paired with organic additives such as “phthalic acid, salicylic acid or their salts,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable VESs for forming the well treatment fluid “used to clean up drilling mud filter cake” and VES stabilizing additives for thickening the VES (thereby including:
“a concentration of the inorganic oxidizer salt in the reactive VES-based fluid is in a range of 5 wt% to 20 wt% and the reactive VES-based fluid comprises organic compounds comprising phthalic acid, salicylic acid or salts thereof;”). Although not required to render obvious the claim, Applicant may note that this modification would also teach “wherein the surfactant is a zwitterionic surfactant comprising dihydroxyl alkyl glycinate, alkyl ampho acetate or propionate, alkyl amidoamine oxide, gemini VES, alkyl betaine, alkyl amidopropyl betaine, or alkylimino mono- or di- propionates derived from waxes, fats, or oils.”
Regarding the specific inorganic oxidizer salts, as above, Tibbles discloses “The fluids and techniques of the present Invention are applicable in numerous different environments, including:” ([0066]) “in conjunction with … dissolution components (e.g., an oxidizer)” ([0073]), such as “ammonium persulfate” ([0025]).
However, Tibbles fails to specify what other chemicals may be the “oxidizer” for breaking and dissolving the filtercake as a dissolution component.
Nevertheless, oxidizers for dissolving filtercake are rather well-known in the art. For example, Chittattukara teaches “a method for treating at least a portion of a subterranean well” (abstract) including “viscoelastic surfactant” ([0056]) wherein “Although a filter cake may be desirable during treatment of a wellbore, removal of the cake is frequently desirable after treatment, as the filter cake may interfere with production of oil and gas from the formation into the well” using “internal breakers” ([0020]) or an external breaker ([0031]) wherein “the breaker package may comprise, for example, a breaker selected from the group consisting of formic acid, tert-butyl hydrogen peroxide, ferric chloride, magnesium peroxide, magnesium peroxydiphosphate, strontium peroxide, barium peroxide, calcium peroxide, magnesium perborate, barium bromate, sodium chlorite, sodium bromate, sodium persulfate, sodium peroxydisulfate, ammonium chlorite, ammonium bromate, ammonium persulfate, ammonium peroxydisulfate, potassium chlorite, potassium bromate, potassium persulfate, potassium peroxydisulfate, one or more oxidizable metal ions (i.e., a metal ion whose oxidation state can be increased by the removal of an electron, such as copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, vanadium), and mixtures thereof” ([0022]) and “Additional examples of breakers include: ammonium, sodium or potassium persulfate; sodium peroxide; sodium chlorite; sodium, lithium or calcium hypochlorite; bromates; perborates; permanganates; chlorinated lime; potassium perphosphate; magnesium monoperoxyphthalate hexahydrate; and a number of organic chlorine derivatives such as N,N′-dichlorodimethylhydantoin and N-chlorocyanuric acid and/or salts thereof. The specific breaker employed may depend on the temperature to which the fracturing fluid is subjected. At temperatures ranging from about 50°C to about 95°C, an inorganic breaker or oxidizing agent, such as, for example, KBrO3, and other similar materials, such as KClO3, KIO3, perborates, persulfates, permanganates (for example, ammonium persulfate, sodium persulfate, and potassium persulfate) and the like, are used to control degradation of the fracturing fluid” ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include other well-known oxidizers, such as potassium chlorate (KClO3), potassium bromate (KBrO3), or barium bromate (BaBrO3), with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate conventional breaker for breaking filtercake (thereby including:
“the inorganic oxidizer salt comprises lithium chlorate (LiClO3), sodium chlorate (NaClO3), potassium chlorate (KClO3), magnesium chlorate [Mg(ClO3)2], calcium chlorate [Ca(ClO3)2], strontium chlorate [Sr(ClO3)2], barium chlorate [Ba(ClO3)2], lithium bromate (LiBrO3), potassium bromate (KBrO3), magnesium bromate [Mg(BrO3)2], calcium bromate [Ca(BrO3)2], strontium bromate [Sr(BrO3)2], barium bromate [Ba(BrO3)2], or combinations thereof”).
Regarding the 0.1-10 wt% surfactant and 5-25 wt% inorganic oxidizer, as above, Tibbles discloses 5% VES and 5% ammonium persulfate ([0025]), which clearly anticipates the claimed 0.1-10 wt% surfactant and 5-25 wt% inorganic oxidizer. Tibbles further teaches use of 1.5% VES ([0028]) and 3% VES ([0030]).
Regarding the rest of the claimed ranges, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include more generally 0.1-10 wt% VES and 5-25 wt% inorganic oxidizer salt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable amounts of VES for viscosification of the completion fluid and of oxidizer as “dissolution components” for the filtercake. Applicant may note that, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
For example, although not required to anticipate or render obvious the claim, Applicant may see the reference to Ba Geri in the Conclusion previously, teaching use of 2-20 wt% e.g. 5-15 wt% oxidizer in a filtercake removal fluid.
Regarding the “proppant” and forming fractures, Tibbles discloses “one object of the present Invention is to provide novel completion fluids to break filtercake, either alone or in conjunction with other workover/completion/stimulation treatments” ([0017]).
However, Tibbles does not specify if the “other completion/stimulation treatments” is referring to using the novel completion fluid in conjunction with proppant during hydraulic fracturing treatment.
Nevertheless, it is well-known in the art that “completion” treatments and especially “stimulation” treatments typically refer to hydraulic fracturing with proppant. For example, Chittattukara teaches in the Background that “Well services can include various types of treatments that are commonly performed in a wellbore or subterranean formation. For example, during completion or intervention, stimulation is a type of treatment performed to enhance or restore the productivity of oil and gas from a well. Stimulation treatments fall into two main groups: hydraulic fracturing and matrix treatments. Fracturing treatments are performed above the fracture pressure of the subterranean formation to create or extend a highly permeable flow path between the formation and the wellbore” ([0008]) and “A newly-created or newly-extended fracture will tend to close together after the pumping of the fracturing fluid is stopped. To prevent the fracture from closing, a material is usually placed in the fracture to keep the fracture propped open and to provide higher fluid conductivity than the matrix of the formation. A material used for this purpose is referred to as a proppant” ([0060]). Chittattukara also includes viscoelastic surfactant ([0056]) and oxidizing breakers ([0035]) in Chittattukara’s own fluid, in addition to proppant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include including proppant and hydraulic fracturing with Tibbles’ completion fluid, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use Tibbles’ novel completion fluids “in conjunction with workover/completion/stimulation treatments” to break filtercake, for known and typical completion/stimulation treatments (as taught by Chittattukara) (thereby including:
“providing the reactive VES-based fluid comprising proppant, a surfactant and an inorganic oxidizer salt through a wellbore into a subterranean formation, wherein a concentration of the surfactant in the reactive VES-based fluid is in a range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%, wherein a concentration of the inorganic oxidizer salt in the reactive VES-based fluid is in a range of 5 wt% to 20 wt%, and wherein the inorganic oxidizer salt comprises lithium chlorate (LiClO3), sodium chlorate (NaClO3), potassium chlorate (KClO3), magnesium chlorate [Mg(ClO3)2], calcium chlorate [Ca(ClO3)2], strontium chlorate [Sr(ClO3)2], barium chlorate [Ba(ClO3)2], lithium bromate (LiBrO3), potassium bromate (KBrO3), magnesium bromate [Mg(BrO3)2], calcium bromate [Ca(BrO3)2], strontium bromate [Sr(BrO3)2], barium bromate [Ba(BrO3)2], or combinations thereof;
oxidizing organic material in the subterranean formation with the reactive VES-based fluid thereby forming fractures in the subterranean formation, wherein a filter cake comprises the organic material, and wherein oxidizing the organic material comprises degrading the filter cake with the reactive VES-based fluid; and
conveying the proppant in the fractures, and wherein the wellbore comprises an open hole wellbore”).
Second, the modifications are obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known completion fluids, proppants, oxidizers, VES, organic additives, filtercake) according to known techniques (hydraulic fracturing; contacting filtercake with VES and oxidizer) in a manner that achieves predictable results (oxidizing organic material to degrade and remove filtercake; and placing proppant in the fractures). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
For example, because Tibbles, Chittattukara, and Crews use the same types of chemicals, there appears to be no technological incompatibility with using Tibbles’ fluid with proppant in fracturing.
Regarding claims 3-5, Tibbles discloses e.g. “(4) VES, 5% (low temperature-optimized) ammonium persulfate, 28% K2-EDTA, 4% KCl” ([0025]) and “the term "VES" subsumes VES systems prepared from seawater in addition to freshwater” ([0042]). Seawater is well-known to contain ~3.5% total of sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, potassium chloride, strontium chloride, sodium bromide, magnesium bromide, calcium bromide, strontium bromide, sodium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride, potassium fluoride, and strontium fluoride. Accordingly, Tibbles anticipates:
(claim 3) wherein the reactive VES-based fluid comprises monovalent or divalent salts; and further
(claim 4) wherein concentration of the monovalent or divalent salts is in a range of 1 wt% to 50 wt%; and/or
(claim 5) wherein the monovalent or divalent salts comprise lithium fluoride (LiF), sodium fluoride (NaF), potassium fluoride (KF), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), barium fluoride (BaF2), lithium chloride (LiCl), sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), calcium chloride (CaCl2), strontium chloride (SrCl2), barium chloride (BaCl2), lithium bromide (LiBr), sodium bromide (NaBr), potassium bromide (KBr), magnesium bromide (MgBr2), calcium bromide (CaBr2), strontium bromide (SrBr2), barium bromide (BaBr2) or a combination thereof.
Regarding the rest of the claim 4 range, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include more generally “wherein concentration of the monovalent or divalent salts is in a range of 1 wt% to 50 wt%,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable amounts of salt for forming a successful VES system. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 6, Tibbles discloses 1% or 5% ammonium persulfate and 4% KCl ([0025]) = 9 wt% and “the term "VES" subsumes VES systems prepared from seawater in addition to freshwater” ([0042]). Seawater is well-known to contain ~3.5% total salts.
Although silent to the exact concentrations, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include more generally “wherein a combined concentration of the inorganic oxidizer salt and the monovalent or divalent salt is 7 wt%, 10 wt%, 12 wt% or 15 wt%,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable amounts of oxidizer as “dissolution components” for degrading/removing the polymer in the filter cake and salt for viscosification of the VES. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. For example, the Office observes that Applicant fails to disclose any criticality to particularly using 1 wt%, 3 wt%, 5 wt%, 7 wt%, 10 wt%, 12 wt% or 15 wt% as opposed to e.g. 2 wt%, 4 wt%, 6 wt%, 8 wt%, 9 wt%, 11 wt% or 13 wt%.
Regarding claim 9, Tibbles discloses 5% VES ([0025]), which clearly anticipates “wherein the concentration of the surfactant is a range of 0.5 wt% to 7 wt%.”
Tibbles further teaches use of 1.5% VES ([0028]) and 3% VES ([0030]).
Regarding the rest of the claimed range, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include more generally “wherein the concentration of the surfactant is a range of 0.5 wt% to 7 wt%,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable amounts of VES for viscosification of the completion fluid. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 14, as in claim 2, Chittattukara further teaches “Suitable proppant materials include, but are not limited to, sand (silica), ground nut shells or fruit pits, sintered bauxite, glass, plastics, ceramic materials, processed wood, resin coated sand or ground nut shells or fruit pits or other composites, and any combination of the foregoing” ([0067]).
As in claim 14, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tibbles to include including proppant and hydraulic fracturing with Tibbles’ completion fluid, “wherein the proppant comprises sand or ceramic proppant,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use Tibbles’ novel completion fluids “in conjunction with workover/completion/stimulation treatments” to break filtercake, for known and typical completion/stimulation treatments i.e. hydraulic fracturing with proppant (as taught by Chittattukara).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7 July 2025 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § Tibbles in view of Chittattukara have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, based on Applicant’s Amendment to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § Tibbles in view of Chittattukara and Crews, and the arguments do not apply to the combination being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674