DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/443,130 (“130 reissue application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 15 February 2024. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 11,249,211 (“’211 patent”) titled “SAND PACK AND GRAVEL PACK ACOUSTIC EVALUATION METHOD AND SYSTEM”, which issued to Jakub Felkl et al. on 15 February 2022 with claims 1-38 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘211 patent was filed on 13 September 2019 and assigned U.S. patent application number 16/569,961 (“’961 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘211 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘961 application is a continuation-in-part of application PCT/US2018/028045 (“PCT application”), filed 18 April 2018, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. provisional application 62/487,722 (“provisional application”), filed 20 April 2017.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘211 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a priority date of at least 18 April 2018, the filing date of the PCT application, and could be as early as 20 April 2017, presuming the claim limitations are fully supported by the disclosure in the provisional application.
The priority date will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis, as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply. Instead, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions will apply.
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 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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 15 February 2024, has been received and entered into the record. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-38 remain pending in the application.
VI. Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS), filed 15 February 2024, is objected to, because in the Domestic Priority section, it states that the ‘961 application is a continuation of the PCT application. However, according to Office records, and the Application Data Sheet originally filed in the ‘961 application on 13 September 2019, the application is a continuation-in-part of the PCT application.
A corrected ADS is required in response to this Office action. Applicant should also request a corrected filing receipt upon entry of the corrected ADS.
For information on filing a corrected ADS, see MPEP § 601.05(a)(II) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.76(c).
VII. Specification
The disclosure is objected to, for the following informalities:
At col. 1, line 7, in the cross-reference section, the specification states that the application is a continuation of International Application PCT/US2018/028045. However, according to Office records, and the Application Data Sheet originally filed in the ‘961 application on 13 September 2019, the application is a continuation-in-part of the PCT application.
Appropriate correction is required.
VIII. Claim Objections
Claims 20, 28, and 37 are object to, because of the following informalities:
Element (c) of claims 20 and 28 includes a processor operable to “use as input the measurements of at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure, determine at least one of a physical parameter or a change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, using the measured at least one of pressure of the time derivative of pressure…” The claims include duplicative language indicating that the determination is made through the use of measurements of at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure.
With respect to claims 17 and 28, these claims include the limitation “at least one characteristics of the manner…” The term “characteristics” should be singular.
With respect to claims 20 and 28, these claims include two instances of “fluid in a wellbore” in the “pressure source” limitation. Since these two instances presumably refer to the same fluid in the same wellbore, the second instance should be “the fluid in the wellbore.”
In addition, claim 20 includes in step (a) “induce a pressure change in in the wellbore…” There are duplicate instances of the word “in.”
With respect to claims 26 and 37, the claims include the limitation “the physical parameters comprises…” The term “parameters” should be singular.
In general, the claims variously refer to the disclosed sand-pack or gravel-pack as “sand-pack or gravel-pack”, “sand pack or gravel pack”, and “sand or gravel-pack”. For consistency, the same terminology should be used throughout the claims and specification.
It is also noted that use of the limitation “sand or gravel-pack” can be interpreted as meaning “sand” or “gravel-pack”, and not including any “sand-pack”.
Appropriate correction is required.
IX. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-38 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.
With respect to claim 1, this claim includes the limitation “the well” in the “measuring” step. There is no antecedent basis for this term.
Claims 2-16, depending from claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claims 6 and 7 also include the limitation “the well” for which there is no antecedent basis.
With respect to claims 3 and 5, these claims include the limitation that the physical parameter determination takes place before (claim 3) or after (claim 5) the pumping of the sand-pack or gravel-pack. However, parent claim 2 includes the limitation that the pressure change induced into the wellbore comprises pumping a sand-pack or gravel-pack. Because the parameter determination is performed by measuring pressure that is induced by pumping a sand-pack or gravel-pack, that determination necessarily takes place during the pumping operation, and cannot take place before or after the pumping operation. This renders claims 3 and 5 indefinite.
With respect to claims 12, 17, and 28, these claims include the limitation “the parameter.” There is no antecedent basis for this term. Applicant presumably refers to “the physical parameter.”
With respect to claim 17, this claim includes the term “a time derivative” in the “predicting” limitation. This renders the claim indefinite, since the claim recites nothing regarding the nature of the time derivative (i.e., time derivative of what?). Presumably, applicant refers to a time derivative of the at least one of a physical parameter.
Further with respect to claims 17 and 28, these claims include, in the “determining” (claims 17 and 28), “correlating” (claims 17 and 28), and “predicting” (claim 17) limitations, recitations of “at least one of a physical parameter, a time derivative of the at least one physical parameter, or a change in the at least one physical parameter with respect to time.” However, a “time derivative” of a physical parameter is the same as “a change [in the physical parameter] with respect to time.”
Applicant may have intended these terms to have different constructions, but that is not apparent from the claims or the contents of applicant’s disclosure. This renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 18, 19, and 29-38, depending from claims 17 and 28 respectively, are likewise rejected as indefinite.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites the limitation “the treatment”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites the limitation “the well” in the “interrogate” step. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
With respect to claims 22 and 30, these claims recite the limitation “the combined perforations.” There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
With respect to claim 28, this claim recites the limitation “the source” in the “operate” step. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Applicants may be referring to the pressure source.
With respect to claims 29-33 and 37, these claims all refer to “the physical parameter” of parent claim 28. However, claim 28 recites two instances of “physical parameters”, one in step (c) wherein the physical parameter is determined, and another in step (e) wherein the physical parameter is predicted. It is unclear to which instance of the “physical parameter” the dependent claims refer. This renders the claims indefinite.
The Office notes that step (d) of claim 28 includes a reference to “the…physical parameter”, thus referring to the determined physical parameter of step (c) above.
The Office also notes that claims 34-36 and 38 include the limitation that “the physical parameter is determined…”, thus indicating that the claimed “physical parameter” is referring to the determined physical parameter of parent claim 28.
With respect to claims 20 and 28, these claims are directed to a system for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation. However, in the “sensor” limitations, the claims include the step of “generating a signal.”
The presence of method steps within an apparatus claim renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear whether the claim would be infringed by an apparatus capable of carrying out the claimed method steps, or if the actual execution of the method steps would be necessary for infringement.
Claims 21-27 and 29-38, depending upon claims 20 and 28 respectively, are likewise rejected as indefinite.
X. 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, 6, 8, 11-17, 20, 23-28, 31, 32, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,313,481 to Daniel Moos et al (“Moos”).
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Moos teaches a method for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as claimed, comprising:
a) inducing a pressure change in a wellbore drilled through the subsurface formation so as to induce tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure of the generation of a pressure wave that propagates downwards in the borehole, col. 4, lines 12-18);
b) measuring at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure in the well for a selected length of time (see disclosure of the measure of pressure within the borehole, col. 1, lines 58-59, col. 8, lines 8-27, and Fig. 7c); and
c) determining at least one of a physical parameter or a change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, using the measured at least one of pressure or the time derivative of pressure, the physical parameter comprising at least one of radius of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, height of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, or spatial variation of fluid conductivity of the sand-pack or gravel-pack (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6; see also disclosure of the determination of parameters of the completion string, including parameters of a screen and/or a gravel pack, and determining if dimensions of a diameter change, an interval distance between diameter changes, and the number of diameter changes, col. 2, lines 38-43).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the inducing a pressure change comprises water hammer generated by changing a flow rate of fluid into or out of the well (see disclosure of the use of a water hammer to induce tube waves in the borehole, col. 1, lines 25-40 and 55-60).
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the pressure change generates Stoneley waves in the wellbore (see disclosure of Stoneley wave properties, col. 11, lines 53-59; the Office also notes applicant’s disclosure that Stoneley waves are synonymous with tube waves, ‘211 patent, col. 7, lines 64-65).
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the physical parameter is determined from at least one of reflection time, reflection phase, or reflection amplitude of tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure of pressure waves generated by the reflection of the waves are the top and bottom of the borehole, col. 4, lines 50-67 and Fig. 3; see also col. 9, lines 21-38 and Figs. 10a-10c).
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the parameter is determined from at least one of frequency, quality factor, or amplitude of a resonance in tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure that wave propagation characteristics, such as wave amplitude, are a function of various parameters and properties of the borehole and surrounding formation, col. 8, lines 27-64 and Figs. 9a-9c; see also disclosure of quality factors, col. 7, lines 23-36 and Figs. 6a and 6b).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the physical parameter is determined using a single measurement dataset of pressure or time derivative of pressure (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6).
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the physical parameter corresponds to a property of the subsurface formation at a certain distance from the wellbore (see disclosure of the ability to calculate the effects of a known amplitude water hammer as a function of distance from its source, col. 11, lines 31-52).
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the physical parameter is determined by determining differences between waveforms of the tube waves from measurements made before and after a sand pack or gravel pack treatment is applied to the wellbore (see disclosure that the disclosed method can include repeating the water hammer generation at a later time and determining a change in value of the property, col. 2, lines 8-12 and col. 11, lines 19-30).
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Moos teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the at least one physical parameter is predicted ahead of time by modeling the response of known or expected wellbore and sand or gravel-pack properties (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6).
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Moos teaches a method of predicting the characteristics of a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as claimed, comprising:
a) inducing a pressure change in a well drilled through the subsurface formation (see disclosure of the generation of a pressure wave that propagates downwards in the borehole, col. 4, lines 12-18);
b) measuring at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure in the well (see disclosure of the measure of pressure within the borehole, col. 1, lines 58-59, col. 8, lines 8-27, and Fig. 7c); and
c) determining at least one of a physical parameter, a time derivative of the at least one physical parameter, or a change in the at least one physical parameter with respect to time, of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, using the measured at least one of pressure or the time derivative of pressure (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6);
d) correlating the at least one of a physical parameter, the time derivative thereof, or the change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of a sand-pack or gravel-pack with at least one of a lithological description of the subsurface formation, or at least one characteristics of the manner in which the sand-pack or gravel-pack was created (see disclosure that known factors and properties such as formation parameters, fluid parameters, tubular dimensions, and completion properties are utilized to characterize wave propagation, col. 11, lines 31-52); and
e) predicting at least one of a physical parameter, a time derivative, or a change in the parameter with respect to time, of a sand-pack or gravel-pack, to be created in another part of the subsurface formation (see disclosure that by making measurements of the pressure signal at different depths along a borehole, it is possible to estimate formation properties such as permeability and to identify possible formation damage, col. 12, lines 1-10; see also disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6; see also disclosure that the disclosed method can include repeating the water hammer generation at a later time and determining a change in value of the property, col. 2, lines 8-12 and col. 11, lines 19-30).
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, Moos teaches a system for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as claimed, comprising:
a) a pressure source in fluid communication with fluid in a wellbore drilled through the subsurface formation, the pressure source operable to induce tube waves in fluid in a wellbore (see disclosure of a valve or other flow restrictor 304 that generates a pressure wave, col. 8, lines 27-34 and Fig. 9a);
b) a sensor in fluid communication with the fluid in the wellbore, the sensor generating a signal related to pressure or pressure time derivative in the fluid in the wellbore (see disclosure of the use of various types of sensors, including mechanical, electrogalvanic, heat pulse and/or radioactive tracer-type meters, col. 12, lines 16-22); and
c) a processor in signal communication with the pressure source and the sensor (see disclosure of a processor, col. 2, lines 43-55 and col. 12, lines 23-32), the processor having thereon logic operable to cause the processor to:
i) actuate the pressure source to induce a pressure change in in the wellbore so as to induce tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure of the generation of a pressure wave that propagates downwards in the borehole, col. 4, lines 12-18);
ii) interrogate the sensor to obtain measurements of at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure in the well for a selected length of time (see disclosure of the measure of pressure within the borehole, col. 1, lines 58-59, col. 8, lines 8-27, and Fig. 7c); and
iii) use as input the measurements of at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure, determine at least one of a physical parameter or a change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, using the measured at least one of pressure or the time derivative of pressure, the physical parameter comprising at least one of radius of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, height of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, or spatial variation of fluid conductivity of the sand-pack or gravel-pack (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6; see also disclosure of the determination of parameters of the completion string, including parameters of a screen and/or a gravel pack, and determining if dimensions of a diameter change, an interval distance between diameter changes, and the number of diameter changes, col. 2, lines 38-43).
Claim 23
With respect to claim 23, Moos teaches the system of claim 20 wherein the physical parameter is determined from at least one of reflection time, reflection phase, or reflection amplitude of tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure of pressure waves generated by the reflection of the waves are the top and bottom of the borehole, col. 4, lines 50-67 and Fig. 3; see also col. 9, lines 21-38 and Figs. 10a-10c).
Claim 24
With respect to claim 24, Moos teaches the system of claim 20 wherein the parameter is determined from at least one of frequency, quality factor, or amplitude of a resonance in the tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure that wave propagation characteristics, such as wave amplitude, are a function of various parameters and properties of the borehole and surrounding formation, col. 8, lines 27-64 and Figs. 9a-9c; see also disclosure of quality factors, col. 7, lines 23-36 and Figs. 6a and 6b).
Claim 25
With respect to claim 25, Moos teaches the system of claim 20 wherein the physical parameter is determined using a single measurement stream of pressure or time derivative of pressure (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6).
Claim 26
With respect to claim 26, Moos teaches the system of claim 20 wherein the physical parameters corresponds to a physical property of the subsurface formation at a certain distance from the wellbore (see disclosure of the ability to calculate the effects of a known amplitude water hammer as a function of distance from its source, col. 11, lines 31-52).
Claim 27
With respect to claim 27, Moos teaches the system of claim 20 wherein the physical parameter is determined by determining differences between waveforms of the tube waves in the wellbore measured before and after a sand pack or gravel pack treatment (see disclosure that the disclosed method can include repeating the water hammer generation at a later time and determining a change in value of the property, col. 2, lines 8-12 and col. 11, lines 19-30).
Claim 28
With respect to claim 28, Moos teaches a system for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as claimed, comprising:
a) a pressure source in fluid communication with fluid in a wellbore drilled through the subsurface formation, the pressure source operable to induce tube waves in fluid in a wellbore (see disclosure of a valve or other flow restrictor 304 that generates a pressure wave, col. 8, lines 27-34 and Fig. 9a);
b) a sensor in fluid communication with the fluid in the wellbore, the sensor generating a signal related to pressure or pressure time derivative in the fluid in the wellbore (see disclosure of the use of various types of sensors, including mechanical, electrogalvanic, heat pulse and/or radioactive tracer-type meters, col. 12, lines 16-22); and
c) a processor in signal communication with the pressure source and the sensor (see disclosure of a processor, col. 2, lines 43-55 and col. 12, lines 23-32), the processor having thereon logic operable to cause the processor to:
i) operate the source to induce a pressure change in in a well drilled through the subsurface formation (see disclosure of the generation of a pressure wave that propagates downwards in the borehole, col. 4, lines 12-18);
ii) interrogate the sensor to obtain measurements of at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure in the well for a selected length of time (see disclosure of the measure of pressure within the borehole, col. 1, lines 58-59, col. 8, lines 8-27, and Fig. 7c); and
iii) use as input the measurements of at least one of pressure or a time derivative of pressure, to determine at least one of a physical parameter, a time derivative of the physical parameter, or a change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of the sand-pack or gravel-pack, using the measured at least one of pressure or the time derivative of pressure (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6);
iv) correlate the at least one of a physical parameter, the time derivative of the physical parameter, or a change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of a sand-pack or gravel-pack with at least one of a lithological description of the subsurface formation, or at least one characteristics of the manner in which the sand-pack or gravel-pack was created (see disclosure that known factors and properties such as formation parameters, fluid parameters, tubular dimensions, and completion properties are utilized to characterize wave propagation, col. 11, lines 31-52); and
v) predict at least one of a physical parameter or a change in the parameter with respect to time of a sand-pack or gravel-pack, to be created in another part of the same, or a similar, subsurface formation (see disclosure that by making measurements of the pressure signal at different depths along a borehole, it is possible to estimate formation properties such as permeability and to identify possible formation damage, col. 12, lines 1-10; see also disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6; see also disclosure that the disclosed method can include repeating the water hammer generation at a later time and determining a change in value of the property, col. 2, lines 8-12 and col. 11, lines 19-30).
Claims 31 and 32
With respect to claims 31 and 32, Moos teaches the system of claim 28 wherein the physical parameter comprises the radius and height of the sand pack or gravel pack (see disclosure of the determination of parameters of the completion string, including parameters of a screen and/or a gravel pack, and determining if dimensions of a diameter change, an interval distance between diameter changes, and the number of diameter changes, col. 2, lines 38-43).
Claim 34
With respect to claim 34, Moos teaches the system of claim 28 wherein the physical parameter is determined from at least one of reflection time, reflection phase, or reflection amplitude of tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure of pressure waves generated by the reflection of the waves are the top and bottom of the borehole, col. 4, lines 50-67 and Fig. 3; see also col. 9, lines 21-38 and Figs. 10a-10c).
Claim 35
With respect to claim 35, Moos teaches the system of claim 28 wherein the parameter is determined from at least one of frequency, quality factor, or amplitude of a resonance in the tube waves in the wellbore (see disclosure that wave propagation characteristics, such as wave amplitude, are a function of various parameters and properties of the borehole and surrounding formation, col. 8, lines 27-64 and Figs. 9a-9c; see also disclosure of quality factors, col. 7, lines 23-36 and Figs. 6a and 6b).
Claim 36
With respect to claim 36, Moos teaches the system of claim 28 wherein the physical parameter is determined using a single measurement of pressure or time derivative of pressure (see disclosure that the estimation of a value of a property of the formation is estimated using the pressure measurements by defining a model of the borehole and the earth formation, and comparing the simulated output of the model with the actual measurements, col. 1, line 55 through col. 2, lines 6).
Claim 37
With respect to claim 37, Moos teaches the system of claim 28 wherein the physical parameters corresponds to a physical property of the subsurface formation at a certain distance from the wellbore (see disclosure of the ability to calculate the effects of a known amplitude water hammer as a function of distance from its source, col. 11, lines 31-52).
Claim 38
With respect to claim 38, Moos teaches the system of claim 28 wherein the physical parameter is determined by determining differences between waveforms of the tube waves in the wellbore measured before and after a sand pack or gravel pack treatment (see disclosure that the disclosed method can include repeating the water hammer generation at a later time and determining a change in value of the property, col. 2, lines 8-12 and col. 11, lines 19-30).
XI. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,313,481 to Daniel Moos et al (“Moos”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,082,993 to William S. Craig (“Craig”).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Moos teaches the method for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as in claim 1.
Moos does not explicitly teach the method wherein inducing a pressure change comprises pumping a sand-pack or gravel-pack treatment.
Craig, however, teaches a method wherein a pressure change is induced by pumping a sand-pack or gravel-pack treatment (see disclosure of a gravel slurry being flowed down the completion string and out of the gravel pack assembly to place a gravel pack in the annular space outside the screen 24, col. 12, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to induce a pressure change by pumping a sand-pack or gravel-pack, since this could minimize or prevent the propagation of fines and sand in the fluids produced in the subsurface formation, thus preventing abrasion and other damage to completion equipment, such as seals, pump seats, rod pumps, completion tubing, and other completion equipment (see col. 1, lines 19-55).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Craig additionally teaches a method wherein at least one of a physical parameter or a change in the physical parameter with respect to time is determined during the pumping of the sand-pack or gravel-pack (see disclosure that a pressure differential across the gravel pack can be measured during the pumping operation in order to achieve an effective barrier to propagation of fines into the inside of the completion string and/or the production string, col. 12, lines 54-58).
Claims 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,313,481 to Daniel Moos et al (“Moos”) as applied to claims 1, 20, and 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,103,203 to Douglas E. Miller et al. (“Miller”).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Moos teaches the method for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as in claim 1.
Moos does not explicitly teach the method wherein inducing a pressure change comprises operating an acoustic source which injects a pressure pulse into fluid within the well.
Miller, however, teaches a method wherein inducing a pressure change comprises operating an acoustic source which injects a pressure pulse into fluid within the well (see disclosure that acoustic disturbances can be introduced in the well, col. 8, lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to induce a pressure change by operating an acoustic source which injects a pressure pulse into fluid within the well, since this is disclosed as an alternative to inducing pressure waves by operating a valve connecting the fluid inside the annulus with fluid outside the annulus (i.e., generating a water hammer) (see col. 8, lines 45-54).
Claims 9, 10, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 33
With respect to claims 9, 10, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 33, Moos teaches the method for characterizing a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation as in claims 1, 20, and 28.
Moos does not explicitly teach the method and system wherein the physical parameter to be determined comprises fluid conductivity of the sand-pack or gravel-pack.
Miller, however, teaches a method and system wherein physical parameters of the wellbore system are determined, including fluid conductivity (see disclosure of monitoring conditions in the fluid traversed in the borehole system, col. 9, lines 11-13; see also disclosure that numerous properties of the fluid are estimated, including conductivity, col. 9, line 64 through col. 10, line 3, and col. 11, lines 10-18).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to monitor fluid conductivity of the fluid in the wellbore, since this allows well operators to predict responses that are dependent on parameters detailing at least one of wellbore system geometry, viscoacoustic properties of the fluid and entrained solids contained in the wellbore system, locations of boundaries and entrained solids, and characteristics and locations of disturbances to pressure and flow in the wellbore system, in order to determine a best prediction of some attribute of the detected disturbances. This would aid operators in monitoring cement setting by pulsing fluid inside casing, simultaneously monitoring both sides of an annulus, monitoring fluid properties including viscosity, density, and temperature, detection of solids suspended in fluid, including CT cleanout, detection of scale, unsuspended solids, filter cakes, and the like, and CT cleanout (see col. 9, lines 23-37).
XII. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, pending resolution of any pending objections and/or rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method for predicting the characteristics of a sand-pack or gravel-pack in a subsurface formation, comprising correlating at least one of a physical parameter, the time derivative thereof, or the change in the physical parameter with respect to time, of a sand-pack or gravel-pack, with the pumping rate (claim 18) or the sand or gravel size (claim 19) with which the sand-pack or gravel-pack was created.
XIII. Conclusion
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘211 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘211 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘211 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Michael Fuelling
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
25 September 2025