DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the formation" in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the underground formation in the preamble or another formation. If it is referring to the underground formation, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the underground formation”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the size distribution" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the particular size distribution in line 4 or another size distribution. If it is referring to the particular size distribution, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the particular size distribution”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the injected sized particles" in lines 5-6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sized particles in line 4 or other sized particles. If it is referring to the sized particles, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the sized particles”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extracted sized particles" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sized particles in line 4 or other sized particles. If it is referring to the sized particles, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the sized particles”. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the size distribution" in lines 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the known size distribution in line 4-5 or another size distribution. If it is referring to the particular size distribution, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the known size distribution”. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the extracted sized particles" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sized particles in line 4 or other sized particles. If it is referring to the sized particles, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the sized particles”. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the injected sized particles" in lines 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sized particles in line 4 or other sized particles. If it is referring to the sized particles, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “the sized particles”. 1. Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1. 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for determining an effective size of a productive fracture network within an underground formation, the method comprising: injecting a colloid into the formation, the colloid comprising a carrier liquid and sized particles with a particular size distribution; extracting a fluid from the formation, the fluid comprising a portion of the injected sized particles; measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles; and determining the effective size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of determining the effective size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, determining the effective size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles can be done by a human , because human judgement is used to interpret results . 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of characterizing induced networks of fractures . There are no further significant elements that transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception . 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: injecting a colloid into the formation, the colloid comprising a carrier liquid and sized particles with a particular size distribution; extracting a fluid from the formation, the fluid comprising a portion of the injected sized particles; measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of characterizing induced networks of fractures . Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the method comprises generating the fracture network by fracking. ”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the fracking comprises injecting a frac fluid into the formation via a wellbore. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the frac fluid comprises a proppant. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the colloid comprises the frac fluid. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the fracking comprises multiple frac stages, each frac stage corresponding to a volume of the frac fluid being injected into a different spatial region of the formation, wherein the sized particles in each frac volume associated with each stage are identifiably different. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the sized particles are formed from a different material for each frac stage. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein measuring the quantity of the extracted sized particles comprises determining a size distribution of the extracted sized particles. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein measuring the quantity of the extracted sized particles comprises determining an amount of material making up the extracted sized particles. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the sized particles have maximum dimension of between 10nm and 1 micron. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the sized particles are insoluble in water and insoluble in hydrocarbons. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein a quantity of the extracted sized particles is measured using a combination of one or more of: Dynamic Light Scattering and Inductively Coupled Plasma analysis. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the sized particles comprise one or more of: barium titanate, iron oxide, Fe 2 0 3 , Fe 3 0 4 , SiO 2 , TiO 2 , silica, and zinc oxide. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the method comprises measuring a quantity of the extracted fluid. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 depends on Claim 14, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the method comprises determining the quantity of a particular ion or salt in the extracted fluid. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 depends on Claim 13, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the method comprises determining a quantity of formation fluid produced from the formation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 depends on Claim 14, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the method comprises determining a quantity of carrier liquid recovered from the formation during the extraction of the fluid from the formation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 depends on Claim 17, which depends on Claim 14, which depends on claim 1 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the method comprises determining a measure of the size of the fracture network based the measured quantity of the recovered carrier liquid. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Regarding claim 19, the claim recites an apparatus for determining a measure of the size of a productive fracture network, the apparatus comprising: a wellbore positioned within a formation; a colloid source, the colloid comprising a carrier liquid and sized particles of a known size distribution; a pump for injecting the colloid into the formation via the wellbore; a container for containing fluids extracted from the wellbore; an analyzer for measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles; and a controller for determining the measure of the size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites an apparatus; therefore, it is a system 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of determining the measure of the size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind ; for example, determining the measure of the size of the productive fracture network can be done by a human, because human judgement is used to interpret results . 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a controller; an analyser the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use , because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of determining a measure of the size of a fracture network are performed: a wellbore positioned within a formation; a colloid source, the colloid comprising a carrier liquid and sized particles of a known size distribution; a pump for injecting the colloid into the formation via the wellbore; a container for containing fluids extracted from the wellbore The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of characterizing induced networks of fractures . There are no further significant elements that transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception . 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of characterizing induced networks of fractures . Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 , therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “ Use of nanoparticles with a predetermined size distribution in determining a measure of the size of a productive fracture network. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. 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. Claim (s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen; Philip D. et al. (US Patent # US 11692424 B2; hereinafter Nguyen) in view of Crews; James B. et al. (US application # US 20180283153 A1; hereinafter Crews) . Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches A method for determining an effective size of a productive fracture network within an underground formation, the method comprising: Injecting ( Par. 31 teaches injecting fluid into boreholes ) a colloid (par.14 teaches colloids) into the formation (par.31) , the colloid comprising a carrier liquid (par.27 teaches a low viscosity fluid ) and sized particles with a particular size distribution (par.27 “ mean particle size of up to about 100 μm ”) ; extracting a fluid from the formation (par.27 teaches “ stimulate production of fluids from the zone. ”) , the fluid comprising a portion of the injected sized particles (par.60 “ The proppant particulates in the fracturing fluid 108 may enter the fractures 116 where they may remain after the fracturing fluid flows out of the well bore. These proppant particulates may “prop” fractures 116 such that fluids may flow more freely through the fractures 116. ”) ; Nguyen doesn’t explicitly teach a method for determining an effective size of a productive fracture network within an underground formation, measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles; and determining the effective size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles. Crews does teach A method for determining an effective size (par.52) of a productive fracture network (abstract) within an underground formation (par.57 “ Electrolocation apparatus, such as those described above, for instance acoustic generators 354 and acoustic sensors 356, would be placed in the fracture plane oriented diagnostic lateral wellbores 350 and 352, respectively to measure the length, width and orientation of the fractures of complex fracture network generated for the geo-specific rock and specific fracture treatment conditions. ”) measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles (par.75 “ far-field fracture complexity can be determined to increase through changes to the set of diagnostic treatment criteria during comparative diagnostic treatments, including injection rate, fluid viscosity, the type and amount and particle size distribution and/or method of using chemical diverters, and the like, as non-limiting examples for performing diagnostic injection tests between lateral wellbores. ” Because these metrics are part of a diagnostic, they are inherently measured) ; and determining the effective size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles ( par.52 teaches determining size of fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles “ the size, amount, distribution and the like of the hydraulic fractures and related propped and non-propped conductivity is generated within the frac interval. ”) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen to include the teachings of Crews ; which would provide an improvement in the driller's ability to find and map sweet-spots to enable wellbores to be placed in the most productive areas of the reservoirs and in the amount of and quality of knowledge about fracture networks, the parameters that control fracture geometry and reservoir production, horizontal wellbores and fracture networks as disclosed by Crews ( par.5- 7 ). Regarding claim 2, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1, Crews further teaches wherein the method comprises generating the fracture network by fracking ( par.4 teaches the limitation as well known; referred to as “ frac treatments ”) . Regarding claim 3, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 2 , Nguyen further teaches wherein the fracking comprises injecting a frac fluid into the formation via a wellbore ( FIGS. 1-15 are diagrams illustrating a portion of a subterranean formation in which an operation is performed in which a displacement fluid is injected into wellbores. ) . Regarding claim 4, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 3 , Nguyen further teaches wherein the frac fluid comprises a proppant ( par.10 teaches proppants ) . Regarding claim 5, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 3 , Nguyen further teaches wherein the colloid comprises the frac fluid (par.25) . Regarding claim 6, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 2 , wherein the fracking comprises multiple frac stages ( Nguyen par.40 teaches a multi-stage fracturing job. ) , each frac stage corresponding to a volume of the frac fluid being injected into a different spatial region of the formation, wherein the sized particles in each frac volume associated with each stage are identifiably different ( Crews par. 19 ) . Regarding claim 7, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 6 , Crews further teaches wherein the sized particles are formed from a different material for each frac stage ( par.22 “effects of materials, concentrations, and staging,” ) . Regarding claim 8, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1 , Crews further teaches wherein measuring the quantity of the extracted sized particles comprises determining a size distribution of the extracted sized particles (par.50 “ Variations in the size of the proppants or conductive particles can be utilized to determine how closure time may potentially vary within the fracture network system. ”) . Regarding claim 9, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1 , Crews further teaches wherein measuring the quantity of the extracted sized particles comprises determining an amount of material making up the extracted sized particles (par.52 “ the size, amount, distribution and the like of the hydraulic fractures and related propped and non-propped conductivity is generated within the frac interval. ”) . Regarding claim 10, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 6 , Crews further teaches wherein the sized particles have maximum dimension of between 10nm and 1 micron ( par. 54 “ superparamagnetic nanoparticles are capable of flowing through micron-size pores ” ) . Regarding claim 11, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1 , Crews further teaches wherein the sized particles are insoluble in water and insoluble in hydrocarbons (par.41) . Regarding claim 12, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1 , Nguyen further teaches wherein a quantity of the extracted sized particles is measured using a combination of one or more of: Dynamic Light Scattering and Inductively Coupled Plasma analysis ( par.17 teaches the use of chemical sensors; chemical sensors use dynamic light scattering to detect and measure analytes by monitoring changes in the Brownian motion and hydrodynamic size of nanoparticle. Proteins or colloids in suspension ) . Regarding claim 13, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1 , Nguyen further teaches wherein the sized particles comprise one or more of: barium titanate, iron oxide ( par.27 teaches iron oxide particles ) , Fe203, Fe304, SiO2, TiO2, silica (par.27 teaches silica) , and zinc oxide. Regarding claim 14, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 1 , Crews further teaches wherein the method comprises measuring a quantity of the extracted fluid ( par.75 inherently teaches measuring quantity of extracted particles; “changes to… the type and amount and particle size distribution…” ) . Regarding claim 15, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 14 , Crews further teaches wherein the method comprises determining the quantity of a particular ion or salt in the extracted fluid (par.41 “ light brines like 2% KCl ”) . Regarding claim 16, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 13 , Nguyen further teaches wherein the method comprises determining a quantity of formation fluid produced from the formation ( par. 37 “The displacement fluid may be injected at any rate sufficient to displace fluids in the matrix of the formation substantially evenly across the ruptured region of the formation. The displacement fluid may be injected at any time after the primary fractures 221a and 221b have been created. In some embodiments, fluids such as oil or gas may have been produced out of the production well bores 215a and 215b for some period of time, and the displacement fluid may be injected into the secondary boreholes 203 at some point after the production of oil or gas has slowed or ceased. Thus, the injection of the displacement fluid may increase production of oil or gas from an already-producing well.” Inherently teaches determining a quantity in order to continue the process) . Regarding claim 17, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 14 , Nguyen further teaches wherein the method comprises determining a quantity of carrier liquid recovered from the formation during the extraction of the fluid from the formation (par.57 inherently teaches determining a quantity of carrier liquid recovered from the formation during the extraction of the fluid ) . Regarding claim 18, Nguyen in view of Crews teaches the method according to claim 14 , Crews further teaches wherein the method comprises determining a measure of the size of the fracture network based the measured quantity of the recovered carrier liquid ( par. 52 “ the size, amount, distribution and the like of the hydraulic fractures and related propped and non-propped conductivity is generated within the frac interval. ” ) . Regarding claim 19, Nguyen teaches a wellbore (par.9 teaches wellbore) positioned within a formation (par.9 teaches wellbore within a formation) ; a colloid source (par.14 “the propellant”; par.55 a proppant source 40 ) , the colloid comprising a carrier liquid (par.15 “ The propellant may be provided as a liquid, or as a solid or semi-solid (e.g., powders, pellets, nanoparticles, etc.) dissolved, dispersed, or suspended in a carrier liquid. ”) and sized particles of a known size distribution (par.27 “ the microproppant can include any particle having a mean particle size of up to about 100 μm . ”) ; a pump for injecting the colloid into the formation via the wellbore (par.55 “ pump and blender system 50 ”) ; a container for containing fluids extracted from the wellbore (par.58 “ The well bore 101 can include a casing 110 ”) ; a controller for ( one or more fluid control devices for controlling the flow of fluids into various regions of the formation along that well bore, among other reasons, to facilitate a more even or uniform flow of reservoir fluids toward the producing well across those regions. ) Nguyen fails to teach an apparatus for determining a measure of the size of a productive fracture network, the apparatus comprising: an analyser for measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles; and determining the measure of the size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles. Crews does teach an apparatus for determining a measure of the size of a productive fracture network (par.57 “ Electrolocation apparatus, such as those described above, for instance acoustic generators 354 and acoustic sensors 356, would be placed in the fracture plane oriented diagnostic lateral wellbores 350 and 352, respectively to measure the length, width and orientation of the fractures of complex fracture network generated for the geo-specific rock and specific fracture treatment conditions. ”) , the apparatus comprising: an analyser for measuring a quantity of the extracted sized particles ( diagnostic devices (e.g. 354 and 356) may be placed in fracture plane oriented diagnostic lateral wellbores (e.g. 350 and 352, respectively) to emit at least one signal to or through subsurface volume 342, a received signal may be detected by the same or different diagnostic device, and the received signal may then be analyzed to ascertain or determine or measure at least one parameter of the at least one primary lateral wellbore 344 and/or 348 and/or the subsurface volume 342. ) ; and determining the measure of the size of the productive fracture network based on the size distribution of the injected sized particles and the measured quantity of extracted sized particles (par.52 “ The injection rates, type of fluid, viscosity of fluid, and stop-start staging of fluid injection may vary from the adjacent wellbores, with parameters and conditions varied to gain diagnostic-based insight of how the reservoir properties and fracture networks may be geometrically controlled and the frac interval reservoir area may be more optimally stimulated. ” Geometric control implies the determination of the size of the productive fracture network ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen to include the teachings of Crews ; which would provide an improvement in the driller's ability to find and map sweet-spots to enable wellbores to be placed in the most productive areas of the reservoirs and in the amount of and quality of knowledge about fracture networks, the parameters that control fracture geometry and reservoir production, horizontal wellbores, fracture networks as disclosed by Crews ( par.5- 7 ). Regarding claim 20, Crews further teaches u se of nanoparticles with a predetermined size distribution in determining a measure of the size of a productive fracture network (par.54) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 20130048282 A1 ; Adams; David M. et al. is a Fracturing Process to Enhance Propping Agent Distribution to Maximize Connectivity Between the Formation and the Wellbore . US 20030060374 A1 ; Cooke, Claude E. JR. is a Method and materials for hydraulic fracturing of wells . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3991 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Huy Phan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7924 . 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. /CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858