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 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim 25 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-24 have been rejected.
Priority
The instant application does not claim the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c) to any prior applications. Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 8 November 2023.
Response to Election / Restriction Requirement
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the traversal is not persuasive. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that Examiner has failed to establish a materially different process the system of claim 25 could carry out. The burden is on the examiner to provide an example, but the example need not be documented. However, Examiner notes that the product may utilize a single tracer element introduced at a single point of the well treatment instead of the two tracer and later portion of the well treatment required by the method.
Applicant can either prove or provide a convincing argument that the alternative use suggested by the examiner cannot be accomplished.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-24 are drawn to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method for characterising a well treatment. Independent claim 21 recites a method for optimizing a well treatment. Independent claim 24 recites a method for optimizing a well treatment.
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for at least one tracer in the well before a well treatment and/or in an early portion of a well treatment
calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for the at least one tracer introduced into the well at a later stage or later portion of the well treatment or after at least well treatment stage has been completed or approaching completion
comparing the at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment of the at least two tracers to estimate at least one characteristic of the well treatment
Independent claim 21 recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal moment for at least one tracer in the well before the well treatment and/or in an early portion of the well treatment
calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal moment for the at least one tracer introduced into the well at a later stage or later portion of the well profile modification treatment or after at least well treatment stage has been completed or approaching completion
comparing the at least one spatial or temporal moment of the at least two tracers to estimate at least one characteristic of the well treatment
Independent claim 24 recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
providing tracer data from a producing well after a well treatment and/or in the early portion of the well treatment
wherein the tracer data comprises tracer concentration over time of two or more tracers in the production flow; wherein the two or more tracers were introduced into the well at known times of the well treatment
analysing the tracer data to estimate at least one characteristic of the well treatment based on the presence and/or concentration of tracers in the samples
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, wherein the well treatment is selected from the group comprising well stimulation treatment, acidizing treatment, matrix acidizing treatment, fracturing treatment, hydraulic fracturing treatment, fracture acidizing treatment, enhanced oil recovery treatment, and/or water control treatment.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein the well treatment is selected from the group comprising well stimulation treatment, acidizing treatment, matrix acidizing treatment, fracturing treatment, hydraulic fracturing treatment, fracture acidizing treatment, enhanced oil recovery treatment, and/or water control treatment.
Dependent claim 9 recites, in part, associating a difference or change between the at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for the two of more tracers with a characteristic of the well treatment.
Dependent claim 10 recites, in part, wherein the at least one moment is selected from a zero order moment, a first order moment, a second order moment, and/or a higher order moment.
Dependent claim 11 recites, in part, analysing a measured tracer concentration data set for each of the two or more tracers wherein the measured tracer concentration data set is tracer concentration as a function of time, tracer concentration as a function of space and/or a residence time distribution.
Dependent claim 12 recites, in part, creating a tracer curve from the measured tracer concentration as a function of time and comparing the tracer curves of the two or more tracers to assess the well stimulation treatment.
Dependent claim 13 recites, in part, calculating an area under the tracer curve to calculate the at least one moment of measured tracer data set and comparing the area under the tracer curve for each of the two or more tracers.
Dependent claim 14 recites, in part, calculating a swept volume for each of the two or more tracers and comparing the swept volume of each of the two or more tracers.
Dependent claim 15 recites, in part, calculating an arrival time characteristic for each of the two or more tracers and comparing the arrival time characteristic for the two or more tracers to assess a magnitude of change associated with the well stimulation treatment.
Dependent claim 16 recites, in part, analysing the measured tracer concentration data to characterise and/or identify a flow type pattern selected from the group comprising a face dissolution, conical wormhole, dominant wormhole, ramified wormhole, uniform dissolution, an etch pattern, a near-wellbore dissolution, heterogeneous etch channel, channels, planar fractures, complex fractures and/or cracks.
Dependent claim 17 recites, in part, identifying and/or characterising flow patterns by comparing a measured tracer response curve with a library of tracer response curves associated with various flow type patterns.
Dependent claim 18 recites, in part, improving production forecasting based on characterising flow patterns after the well treatment.
Dependent claim 19 recites, in part, wherein the tracers are selected from the group comprising water tracers, oil tracers, gas tracers, or tracers deployed as solids such as in a polymer matrix, impregnated proppant, or fluid loss material.
Dependent claim 20 recites, in part, comparing the at least one spatial or temporal moment of the tracers to estimate at least one characteristic of the further well treatment.
Dependent claim 22 recites, in part, comprising optimising the well treatment by adjusting one or more parameters selected from the group comprising stimulation fluid type, fluid viscosity, fluid reactivity, acid concentration, additive concentration, injection volume, injection rates, pulsing, proppant concentrations, fluid loss additive concentration and/or diverting agents.
Dependent claim 23 recites, in part, characterising changes in reservoir flow patterns and optimising the well treatment by adjusting additional treatment and/or changing the treatment design in subsequent stages or subsequent wells.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 or 21 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 3 recites introducing at least one tracer into a well before and/or with the well treatment. Claim 5 recites introducing each of the two or more tracers into the well by injecting the two or more tracers into the well from surface or from a downhole device. Claim 6 recites introducing at least one tracer into the well by releasing tracer from tracer sources installed, arranged or positioned in the well. Claim 7 recites introducing two or more tracer into the same injector well or different injector wells. Claim 8 recites introducing two or more tracers into an injector well, a production well or a combination of at least one injector well and production well. The specification does not have any required embodiment for injecting the tracer/s into the well or a mechanical means for performing the injection. There are general chemical embodiments such as a slurry offered on p. 4. Therefore, the injection of the tracers into the well at different locations/time by any means amounts to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP § 2106.05(h) similar to example vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) wherein the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Furthermore, the injection of the tracers would amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (MPEP 2106.05(f)(I) see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 3 recites introducing at least one tracer into a well before and/or with the well treatment. Claim 5 recites introducing each of the two or more tracers into the well by injecting the two or more tracers into the well from surface or from a downhole device. Claim 6 recites introducing at least one tracer into the well by releasing tracer from tracer sources installed, arranged or positioned in the well. Claim 7 recites introducing two or more tracer into the same injector well or different injector wells. Claim 8 recites introducing two or more tracers into an injector well, a production well or a combination of at least one injector well and production well. Using a tracer to monitor water quality is well understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Davis et al., Ground-Water Tracers — A Short Review, 18(1) Ground Water 14-23 (Jan 1980) in the Introduction on p. 14 col 1 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore the introduction of tracers to determine water quality is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-24 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 14-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cullick et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0277996)[hereinafter Cullick].
Claim 1 is rejected because Cullick teaches on all elements of the claim:
a method of characterising a well treatment, the method comprising is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0026-27 and ¶ 0073-74 (teaching on a well water treatment determination, simulation, and optimization method utilizing tracers)
calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for at least one tracer in the well before a well treatment and/or in an early portion of a well treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0027, ¶ 0064-65, and ¶ 0075 (teaching on determining spatio-temporal information regarding fluid flow with at least one tracer patterns including fluid flow rates into the well reservoir (treated as synonymous to "before a well treatment"))
calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for the at least one tracer introduced into the well at a later stage or later portion of the well treatment or after at least well treatment stage has been completed or approaching completion is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0065, ¶ 0069-70, ¶ 0075, and ¶ 0085 (teaching on determining spatio-temporal information regarding fluid flow patterns of a tracer after a treatment stage in a barrier)
comparing the at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment of the at least two tracers to estimate at least one characteristic of the well treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0075-77, ¶ 0083-85, and ¶ 0096 (teaching on generating a model for comparing the different tracer measurements to determine characteristics of the well and corresponding treatment)
Independent claims 21 and 24 are rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 2, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 wherein the well treatment is selected from the group comprising well stimulation treatment, acidizing treatment, matrix acidizing treatment, fracturing treatment, hydraulic fracturing treatment, fracture acidizing treatment, enhanced oil recovery treatment, and/or water control treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0091 (teaching on the well treatment including hydrocarbon sweeping fluid wherein on of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a surfactant is a hydraulic fracturing additive)
As per claim 3, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising introducing at least one tracer into a well before and/or with the well treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0064-65, ¶ 0069-70, ¶ 0075, and ¶ 0085 (teaching on introducing the tracer at a plurality of locations throughout the well before, during, and after treatment)
As per claim 4, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising calculating, estimating and/or determining at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for at least one tracer in the well before the well treatment from historical tracer injection and/or production associated with production from the reservoir is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0027, ¶ 0064-65, ¶ 0069, and ¶ 0073-75 (teaching on determining spatio-temporal information regarding fluid flow with at least one tracer patterns including fluid flow rates into the well reservoir (treated as synonymous to "before a well treatment") to a production well wherein the system saves and analyses past data generated by the tracer detectors)
As per claim 5, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising introducing each of the two or more tracers into the well by injecting the two or more tracers into the well from surface or from a downhole device is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0027, ¶ 0064-65, and ¶ 0075 (teaching on injecting one tracer into the well reservoir (treated as synonymous to "before a well treatment") though a downhole truck device)
As per claim 6, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising introducing at least one tracer into the well by releasing tracer from tracer sources installed, arranged or positioned in the well is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0065, ¶ 0069-70, ¶ 0075, and ¶ 0085 (teaching on injecting a second tracer after a treatment stage in a plurality of internal well barriers)
As per claim 7, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising introducing two or more tracer into the same injector well or different injector wells is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0027, ¶ 0064-65, and ¶ 0075 (teaching on injecting one or more tracers into the well reservoir (treated as synonymous to "before a well treatment") though an injection external truck device)
As per claim 8, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising introducing two or more tracers into an injector well, a production well or a combination of at least one injector well and production well is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0027, ¶ 0064-65, ¶ 0075, and ¶ 0098 (teaching on injecting one or more tracers into the injector well and a production well)
As per claim 9, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising associating a difference or change between the at least one spatial or temporal tracer distribution moment for the two of more tracers with a characteristic of the well treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0096-99 (teaching on generating a quantity model for comparing the change in tracer measurements to determine characteristics of the well and corresponding treatment)
As per claim 10, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 wherein the at least one moment is selected from a zero order moment, a first order moment, a second order moment, and/or a higher order moment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087 and ¶ 0096-99 (teaching on generating a quantity model for comparing the change in tracer measurements to determine characteristics of the well and corresponding treatment via saturation over time per space region (treated as synonymous to an ordered moment))
As per claim 11, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising analyzing a measured tracer concentration data set for each of the two or more tracers wherein the measured tracer concentration data set is tracer concentration as a function of time, tracer concentration as a function of space and/or a residence time distribution is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087 and ¶ 0096-99 (teaching on generating a quantity model for comparing the change in tracer measurements to determine characteristics of the well and corresponding treatment via saturation over time per space region (treated as synonymous to an ordered moment))
As per claim 14, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising calculating a swept volume for each of the two or more tracers and comparing the swept volume of each of the two or more tracers is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0072-73, ¶ 0087 and ¶ 0096-99 (teaching on monitoring and analyzing the movement of the tracer and corresponding sweep volume in the reservoir to analyze and identify flow patterns in the reservoir to improve sweep efficiency)
As per claim 15, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising calculating an arrival time characteristic for each of the two or more tracers and comparing the arrival time characteristic for the two or more tracers to assess a magnitude of change associated with the well stimulation treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0087 and ¶ 0096-99 (teaching on monitoring and analyzing the volumetric movement of the tracer and corresponding tracer location (treated as synonymous to arrival time characteristic) in the reservoir to analyze and identify flow patterns in the reservoir to improve sweep efficiency)
As per claim 16, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising analyzing the measured tracer concentration data to characterize and/or identify a flow type pattern selected from the group comprising a face dissolution, conical wormhole, dominant wormhole, ramified wormhole, uniform dissolution, an etch pattern, a near-wellbore dissolution, heterogeneous etch channel, channels, planar fractures, complex fractures and/or cracks is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0093-94 (teaching on analyzing the movement of the tracer in the reservoir to analyze and identify flow patterns in the reservoir including fractures)
As per claim 18, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 comprising improving production forecasting based on characterising flow patterns after the well treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0069 and ¶ 0073 (teaching on proposing well modifications to increase production based on the analysis)
As per claim 19, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 wherein the tracers are selected from the group comprising water tracers, oil tracers, gas tracers, or tracers deployed as solids such as in a polymer matrix, impregnated proppant, or fluid loss material is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0025 and ¶ 0027 (teaching on oil, water, and gas tracer embodiments)
As per claim 20, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 1 introducing at least one distinctive tracer into a well before and/or with a further well treatment and introducing a different tracer into the well at a later stage or later portion of the well treatment or after at least well treatment stage has been completed or approaching completion and comparing the at least one spatial or temporal moment of the tracers to estimate at least one characteristic of the further well treatment is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0069-70, ¶ 0075-77, ¶ 0083-85, and ¶ 0096 (teaching on determining spatio-temporal information regarding fluid flow patterns of a tracer before and a tracer after a treatment stage in a barrier)
As per claim 22, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 21 comprising optimising the well treatment by adjusting one or more parameters selected from the group comprising stimulation fluid type, fluid viscosity, fluid reactivity, acid concentration, additive concentration, injection volume, injection rates, pulsing, proppant concentrations, fluid loss additive concentration and/or diverting agents is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0073 (teaching on modifying a treatment fluid parameter including fluid pressure and flow rate to improve sweep efficiency)
As per claim 23, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, Cullick also discloses the following:
the method according to claim 21 comprising characterising changes in reservoir flow patterns and optimising the well treatment by adjusting additional treatment and/or changing the treatment design in subsequent stages or subsequent wells is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0073 (teaching on modifying a treatment fluid parameter including fluid pressure and flow rate to improve sweep efficiency at particular locations)
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 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullick et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0277996)[hereinafter Cullick] in view of Allison et al., Analysis of field tracers for reservoir description, 5(2) Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 173-186 (1991)[hereinafter Allison].
As per claim 12, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cullick fails to teach the following; Allison, however, does disclose:
the method according to claim 1 comprising creating a tracer curve from the measured tracer concentration as a function of time and comparing the tracer curves of the two or more tracers to assess the well stimulation treatment is taught in the § Simulation of field tracer project on p. 178-179 (teaching on simulating tracer "activity" curves based, in part, on multiple injection locations as a function of time and concentration to determine reservoir description purposes)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the well treatment outcome simulation method of Cullick with the tracer activity curve and area under the curve method for mapping the reservoir comparing the area under the curve between well sites of Allison with the motivation of “determin[ing] accurate reservoir description” via “defining reservoir heterogeneity and dispersion characteristics” (Allison in the § Introduction on p. 173).
As per claim 13, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Cullick fails to teach the following; Allison, however, does disclose:
the method according to claim 12 comprising calculating an area under the tracer curve to calculate the at least one moment of measured tracer data set and comparing the area under the tracer curve for each of the two or more tracers is taught in the § Simulation of field tracer project on p. 178-179 (teaching on simulating tracer curves based, in part, on multiple injection locations and area under the curve comparison as a function of time and concentration to determine reservoir description purposes)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the well treatment outcome simulation method of Cullick with the tracer activity curve and area under the curve method for mapping the reservoir comparing the area under the curve between well sites of Allison with the motivation of “determin[ing] accurate reservoir description” via “defining reservoir heterogeneity and dispersion characteristics” (Allison in the § Introduction on p. 173).
As per claim 17, Cullick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Cullick fails to teach the following; Allison, however, does disclose:
the method according to claim 1 comprising identifying and/or characterising flow patterns by comparing a measured tracer response curve with a library of tracer response curves associated with various flow type patterns is taught in the § Summary and conclusions on p. 184-185 and § Simulation of large-scale, multiple-well tracer project on p. 174 (teaching on matching tracer curves of one well to other well locations from well logs (treated as synonymous to a library of flow patterns) for identifying reservoir description (treated as synonymous to flow patterns))
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the well treatment outcome simulation method of Cullick with the tracer activity curve and area under the curve method for mapping the reservoir comparing the area under the curve between well sites of Allison with the motivation of “determin[ing] accurate reservoir description” via “defining reservoir heterogeneity and dispersion characteristics” (Allison in the § Introduction on p. 173).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aldhaheri et al, Development of machine learning methodology for polymer gels screening for injection wells, 151 Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77-93 (2017) teaching on a training a classification model for determining a performance measure for a plurality of tracers (here - tracer gels) in the § 4.1. Property selection on p. 81 and Table 4 on p. 83
Pedretti et al., On the formation of breakthrough curves tailing during convergent flow tracer tests in three-dimensional heterogeneous aquifers, 49 Water Resources Research 4157-4173 (2013) teaching on simulating breakthrough tracer curves based, in part, on multiple injection locations as a function of time and density and comparing the BTC peak spreading graph to known historical graphs for identifying tailing (i.e. non-uniform flow pattern types) for the field characteristics in the § 3.3. Effect of Changing the Injection Location on p. 4165-4166, § 4.1. Can Peak Spreading and Tailing Be Related? on p. 4168-4169, and in the § 5. Conclusions on p. 4172
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights