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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, the hyphen between “the” and “first” should likely be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,920,428 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of present claims 10 and 13-20 are already required by patented claims 10-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kofoed et al. (US 9,581,003 B2) (“Kofoed”).
Referring to claim 1: Kofoed teaches a system for inter-fracture flooding of a wellbore 224, the system comprising:
a tubular 202 defining a passageway;
one or more packers 206 coupled to the tubular; and
two or more unidirectional valves 222 (column 10, lines 45-57) and 508 coupled to the tubular, the unidirectional valves including:
one or more first unidirectional valves 508, each configured to:
open to permit fluid communication from the passageway to outside of the tubular through the first unidirectional valve (Fig. 6); and
close to prevent fluid communication from outside of the tubular to the passageway through the first unidirectional valve (column 5, lines 37-44); and
one or more second unidirectional valves 222 (the center “222”), each configured to:
open to permit fluid communication from outside of the tubular to the passageway through the second unidirectional valve (column 10, lines 45-57); and
close to prevent fluid communication from the passageway to outside of the tubular through the second unidirectional valve (column 5, lines 37-44);
wherein, for each of the second unidirectional valve(s), at least one of the packer(s) is disposed between the second unidirectional valve and each adjacent one of the first unidirectional valve(s) along the tubular (FIG. 6).
Referring to claim 2: Kofoed teaches at least one of the first and second unidirectional valves is configured to open in response to a pressure differential between the passageway and outside of the tubular that acts on the unidirectional valve (column 10, lines 30-57).
Referring to claims 3 and 4: Kofoed teaches at least one of the first unidirectional valve(s) is biased closed (column 5, lines 37-44), wherein at least one of the first unidirectional valve(s) is configured to open when pressure in the passageway acting on the first unidirectional valve is at least 1 pound per square inch (psi) higher than pressure outside of the tubular acting on the first unidirectional valve (column 5, lines 47-52).
Referring to claims 5 and 6: Kofoed teaches at least one of the second unidirectional valve(s) is biased closed (column 5, lines 37-44), wherein at least one of the second unidirectional valve(s) is configured to open when pressure outside of the tubular acting on the second unidirectional valve is at least 1 psi higher than pressure in the passageway acting on the second unidirectional valve (column 5, lines 47-52).
Referring to claim 7: Kofoed teaches at least one of the first 508 and second unidirectional valves is a check valve.
Referring to claim 8: Kofoed teaches the packer(s) comprise two or more packers; and at least two of the packers are disposed between adjacent ones of the first and second unidirectional valves along the tubular (Figs. 5-7).
Referring to claim 9: Kofoed teaches the packer(s) comprise two or more packers; wherein:
the first unidirectional valve(s) comprise two or more first unidirectional valves 508 and 506, and at least two of the first unidirectional valves 506 are disposed between adjacent ones of the packers along the tubular (Figs. 5-7); or
the second unidirectional valve(s) comprise two or more second unidirectional valves, and at least two of the second unidirectional valves are disposed between adjacent ones of the packers along the tubular.
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 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kofoed, alone.
Referring to claim 10: Kofoed teaches a method for inter-fracture flooding of a wellbore 224, the method comprising:
disposing a tubular 202 having a passageway into the wellbore, the tubular coupled to one or more first valves 508 and one or more second valves 222;
increasing pressure within the passageway such that, responsive to the increasing pressure, the first valve(s) open and fluid flows from the passageway, through the first valve(s), and into the wellbore (column 10, lines 45-57); and
reducing pressure within the passageway (column 10, line 66 - column 11, line 3) such that, responsive to the reducing pressure:
the first valve(s) close (column 5, lines 37-44); and
the second valve(s) open and hydrocarbons flow from one or more second fractures of the wellbore, through the second valve(s), and into the passageway (column 10, lines 33-40; and column 10, line 66 - column 11, line 3);
wherein, for each of the second valve(s), a packer 206 is coupled to the tubular between the second valve and each adjacent one of the-first valve(s) along the tubular (Figs. 5-7).
While Kofoed teaches fracturing is known (column 2, lines 7-14 and column 3, lines 1-2), Kofoed does not specifically teach fluid flows from the passageway, through the first valve(s), and into one or more first fractures of the wellbore. 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 the method taught by Kofoed to include flowing fluid into one or more first fractures with a reasonable expectation of success since such a method is extremely well known in the art for stimulation of the formation to enhance production.
Referring to claim 13: Kofoed teaches at least one of the first and second valves is a unidirectional valve (column 10, lines 33-44).
Referring to claims 14 and 15: Kofoed teaches at least one of the first valve(s) and at least one of the second valve(s) is biased closed (column 5, lines 37-44).
Referring to claim 16: Kofoed teaches at least one of the first 508 and second valves is a check valve.
Referring to claim 17: Kofoed teaches increasing pressure within the passageway is performed at least by pumping fluid into the passageway (via pump 112).
Referring to claim 18: Kofoed teaches pumping fluids including gas (column 5, lines 53-60). However, Kofoed does not specifically teach the pumped fluid comprises a majority, by volume and/or mass, of a gas. 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 the pumped fluid taught by Kofoed to be mostly gas since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claim 19: Kofoed inherently teaches a formation into which the wellbore extends has an average permeability (column 6, lines 55-61) and that there are variations in permeability along the wellbore (column 7, lines 57-62). However, Kofoed does not specifically teach a formation into which the wellbore extends has an average permeability that is less than approximately 0.5 millidarcies (mD), optionally, less than approximately 0.1 mD. 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 the formation used by Kofoed to have an average permeability that is less than approximately 0.5 millidarcies (mD), optionally, less than approximately 0.1 mD with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Referring to claim 20: Kofoed teaches the wellbore is cased 302.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Kofoed does not teach the packers are positioned to separate each second valve from each adjacent first valve, the examiner would like to point out no such “separation” limitation is recited in or require by the present claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The packers are merely required to be disposed between the valves, which Kofoed does teach. Therefore, the claims stand finally rejected as further explained above.
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 CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
02 April 2026