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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 08/22/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation "the criteria comprises", it should be “the criteria comprise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "selecting the result is based on the result comprising preferred operations or orders of operations”. It is unclear from the claim language how can selecting the result be based on the result. Correction is required. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows
selecting the result is based on preferred operations or orders of operations.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A method, comprising:
receiving an indication of criteria for a function to be performed at a commercial process facility;
determining that one or more scenarios meet the criteria;
generating one or more route maps from the one or more scenarios using coupled simulators;
selecting a route map of the one or more route maps; and
causing at least one operation of the route map to be performed.
The limitations “determining that one or more scenarios meet the criteria”, “generating one or more route maps from the one or more scenarios” and “selecting a route map of the one or more route maps” are an abstract idea because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A method, comprising” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“receiving an indication of criteria for a function to be performed at a commercial process facility” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“causing at least one operation of the route map to be performed” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the commercial process facility comprises an oilfield”. This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of facility that is being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the function is an optimization of a wellbore clean-up process”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the optimization comprises maximizing clean-up quality in a least amount of time, minimizing CO2 emissions, minimizing an amount of area occupied by wellhead equipment and connections, or minimizing sound emission.” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein determining that the one or more scenarios meet the criteria comprises comparing the criteria to the one or more scenarios that are stored in library.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining or setting an equation to perform the determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein determining that the one or more scenarios meet the criteria comprises comparing the criteria to the one or more scenarios received from a user.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining or setting an equation to perform the determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining that the one or more scenarios meet the criteria comprises comparing the criteria to the one or more scenarios that are generated using real-world measurements of the commercial process facility or a similar commercial process facility.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of determining or setting an equation to perform the determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the criteria comprises control variables, facility configurations, facility conditions, operations to be performed, or optimization factors.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the parameters that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “wherein selecting the route map comprises receiving a selection of a route map from a user.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the parameters that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “wherein selecting the route map comprises matching the selected route map to key performance indicators or matching the selected route map to preferred steps or orders of steps.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the parameters that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 recites “wherein causing the at least one operation of the route map to be performed comprises causing a change in orifice size of a variable choke.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the parameters that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid Reza Nasriani et al, NPL “Flowback cleanup mechanisms of post-hydraulic fracturing in unconventional natural gas reservoirs”, Published: 10 April 2019, (hereafter Nasriani et al), in views of M. Dimude et al, NPL, “Knarr Field - Optimization of Wellbore Clean-Up Through Dynamic Transient Modeling”, Published: 6 March 2018 (hereafter Dimude et al).
Regarding claim 1. Nasriani et al teach a method, comprising:
receiving an indication of criteria for a function to be performed at a commercial process facility (Page 318, Sec 1.1, new sampling approach LHS is introduce to reduce the long CPU time required);
determining that one or more scenarios meet the criteria (Page 318, Sec 2, Four scenarios are considered);
generating one or more route maps from the one or more scenarios using coupled simulators (Page 322, Fig 4, VW and MFHW, coefficients);
selecting a route map of the one or more route maps (Page 322, Table 4, Parameters of the worst/best scenarios for the base reference set); and
Nasriani et al do not teach causing at least one operation of the route map to be performed.
Dimude et al teach causing at least one operation of the route map to be performed (Dimude et al, Page 23, The use of transient simulations was very useful in the planning stages of the well clean-up operations for the Knarr development. The result was an optimized and cost efficient operation) (Dimude et al, Page 24, Model predictions largely agree with field data, thus a history matching under the same parameters to validate the simulation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nasriani et al to incorporate the teachings of Dimude et al to perform the operation one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it minimizes clean-up time, avoids formation damage and predefined targets were monitored and recorded to validate the predictive model (Dimude et al, abstract).
Regarding claim 2. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the commercial process facility comprises an oilfield (Nasriani et al, Page 318, Sec 2.1, stimulated reservoir volume) (Nasriani et al, Page 318, Sec 2, vertical well (VW), Multiple Fractured Horizontal Wells (MFHW)).
Regarding claim 3. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the function is an optimization of a wellbore clean-up process (Nasriani et al, Page 325, Sec 3.3.2, MEPO, Multiple Realization Optimizer, attain faster results) (Nasriani et al, Page 322, Table 4, worst/best scenarios, parameter values).
Regarding claim 4. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 3, wherein the optimization comprises maximizing clean-up quality in a least amount of time, minimizing CO2 emissions, minimizing an amount of area occupied by wellhead equipment and connections, or minimizing sound emission (Nasriani et al, Page 339, Sec 4, b. c, faster clean-up was observed).
Regarding claim 5. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more scenarios meet the criteria comprises comparing the criteria to the one or more scenarios that are stored in library (Nasriani et al, Page 318, Sec 2, Base reference set) (Nasriani et al, Page 318, Sec 2.1, simulation of the MFHW model were compared with the same results from an analytical model for MFHW, previously used for VM model).
Regarding claim 6. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more scenarios meet the criteria comprises comparing the criteria to the one or more scenarios received from a user (Nasriani et al, Page 322, fig 4, multiple scenarios at different days given by the user).
Regarding claim 7. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more scenarios meet the criteria comprises comparing the criteria to the one or more scenarios that are generated using real-world measurements of the commercial process facility or a similar commercial process facility (Nasriani et al, Page 318, model validation).
Regarding claim 8. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the criteria comprises control variables, facility configurations, facility conditions, operations to be performed, or optimization factors (Dimude et al, Page 17, History matching, model inputs based on field measurements and post clean up well tests results).
Regarding claim 9. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the route map comprises receiving a selection of a route map from a user (Nasriani et al, Page 332, sec 3.9, considering the impact of the 12 parameters, fig 20, nf is given).
Regarding claim 10. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the route map comprises matching the selected route map to key performance indicators (Nasriani et al, Page 332, sec 3.8, using histogram charts, shows the same observation similar to what was reported previously , fig 19, nf is given and relates to the coefficients) or matching the selected route map to preferred steps or orders of steps.
Regarding claim 11. Nasriani et al and Dimude et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the at least one operation of the route map to be performed comprises causing a change in orifice size of a variable choke (Dimude et al, Page 17, fig 21, choke opening, sec A-4H clean up simulation, choke ramp-up).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid Reza Nasriani et al, NPL “Flowback cleanup mechanisms of post-hydraulic fracturing in unconventional natural gas reservoirs”, Published: 10 April 2019, (hereafter Nasriani et al), in views of S.A. Boronin et al, NPL, “Integrated modeling of fracturing-flowback-production dynamics and calibration on field data: Optimum well startup scenarios”, Published: 30 December 2022 (hereafter Boronin et al).
Regarding claim 12. Nasriani et al teaches a system, comprising:
one or more memory devices storing instructions (Page 324, Sec 3.3, MEPO utilizes Python script to perform the pre and post-processing stages, computer code using Python was developed, thus a computer was used to execute the Python code, therefore a computer comprises a processor, memory for performing the computer code); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the one or more processor to (Page 324, Sec 3.3, MEPO utilizes Python script to perform the pre and post-processing stages, computer code using Python was developed, thus a computer was used to execute the Python code, therefore a computer comprises a processor, memory for performing the computer code):
transmit control variables for a wellbore clean-up operation of a wellbore to a wellbore clean-up simulator (Page 320, Sec 2.2, analyze sensitive of some parameters to particular output, independent parameters to main response variable);
run the wellbore clean-up simulator using the control variables (Page 322, Fig 4, VW and MFHW, coefficients);
run a commercial process facility simulator with the wellbore clean-up simulator based at least in part on the control variables (Page 319, Fig 1, Developed Models, and Clean-up Scenarios) (Page 325, Sec 3.4, MFHW sets using MEPO and LHS),
wherein the commercial process facility simulator simulates the wellbore clean-up operation in a commercial process facility that comprises the wellbore (Page 321, 31 different sets for fractured vertical wells (2 sets) and Multiple fractured horizontal wells (29 sets), all sets use similar reservoir dimensions); and
Nasriani et al does not teach simulator in a coupled configuration, output a function based on both simulators in the coupled configuration.
Boronin et al teaches simulator in a coupled configuration (Boronin et al, Page 2204, Fig 1, Integrated modelling framework, multiple simulators coupled together), output a function based on both simulators in the coupled configuration (Boronin et al, Page 2222, Sec 4, compare the impact of geomechanics and rheology effects on oil production during limited flowback period).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nasriani et al to incorporate the teachings of Boronin et al to output a function based on coupled simulators one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it can perform sensitivity analysis to study the impact of geomechanics and fluid rheology parameters on flowback efficiency (Boronin et al, abstract).
Regarding claim 13. Nasriani et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 12, wherein outputting the function comprises changing at least one property of the commercial process facility (Nasriani et al, Page 317, Col 2, Par 6, FF is injected, changes other parameters like soaking time extension or pressure drawdown) (Nasriani et al, Page 318, Sec 2, Fracking fluid (FF), the injected FF volume was produced under a controlled bottom-hole flowing pressure) (Nasriani et al, Page 329, Sec 3.6, less FF injected in the MFHW base reference set).
Regarding claim 14. Nasriani et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one property comprises an orifice size of a variable choke, a pump speed or pressure, or opening or closing a valve (Boronin et al, Page 2213, Sec 3, bottom-hole pressure in the well decreases according to a certain dynamics of the choke opening).
Regarding claim 15. Nasriani et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 12, wherein running the commercial process facility simulator comprises transmitting the control variables to the commercial process facility simulator (Boronin et al, Page 2226, Sec 5, hydraulic fracturing using Planar3D ILSA model and long-term production using a hydrodynamic reservoir simulator, study the long-term oil production in a well taking into account fracture conductivity degradation during flowback).
Regarding claim 16. Nasriani et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 12, wherein running the commercial process facility simulator comprises transmitting at least some parameters from the wellbore clean-up simulator to the commercial process facility simulator (Boronin et al, Page 2204, fig 1, Reservoir simulator, fracture conductivity and geometry is inputted).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid Reza Nasriani et al, NPL “Flowback cleanup mechanisms of post-hydraulic fracturing in unconventional natural gas reservoirs”, Published: 10 April 2019, (hereafter Nasriani et al), in views of M. Dimude et al, NPL, “Knarr Field - Optimization of Wellbore Clean-Up Through Dynamic Transient Modeling”, Published: 6 March 2018 (hereafter Dimude et al), in further views of S.A. Boronin et al, NPL, “Integrated modeling of fracturing-flowback-production dynamics and calibration on field data: Optimum well startup scenarios”, Published: 30 December 2022 (hereafter Boronin et al).
Regarding claim 17. Nasriani et al teaches a system, comprising: one or more memory devices storing instructions (Page 324, Sec 3.3, MEPO utilizes Python script to perform the pre and post-processing stages, computer code using Python was developed, thus a computer was used to execute the Python code, therefore a computer comprises a processor, memory for performing the computer code); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the one or more processors to (Page 324, Sec 3.3, MEPO utilizes Python script to perform the pre and post-processing stages, computer code using Python was developed, thus a computer was used to execute the Python code, therefore a computer comprises a processor, memory for performing the computer code):
receive an indication of criteria for a function to be performed at a commercial process facility (Page 318, Sec 1.1, new sampling approach LHS is introduce to reduce the long CPU time required);
transmit control variables for one or more facility scenarios to a wellbore clean-up operation of a wellbore to a wellbore clean-up simulator (Page 320, Sec 2.2, analyze sensitive of some parameters to particular output, independent parameters to main response variable);
run the wellbore clean-up simulator using the control variables (Page 322, Fig 4, VW and MFHW, coefficients);
run a commercial process facility simulator with the wellbore clean-up simulator based at least in part on the control variables (Page 319, Fig 1, Developed Models, and Clean-up Scenarios) (Page 325, Sec 3.4, MFHW sets using MEPO and LHS),
wherein the commercial process facility simulator simulates the wellbore clean-up operation for the one or more facility scenarios in the commercial process facility that comprises the wellbore (Page 321, 31 different sets for fractured vertical wells (2 sets) and Multiple fractured horizontal wells (29 sets), all sets use similar reservoir dimensions);
output a respective result for each of the one or more facility scenarios (Page 331, fig 17, LRSM coefficients) (Page 328, sec 3.5.1, having a trend and magnitude, indicating the fracture spacing does not affect he cleanup efficiency);
select a result from the respective results (Page 322, Table 4, Parameters of the worst/best scenarios for the base reference set); and
Nasriani et al does not teach cause at least one action to be performed at the wellbore based on the selected result.
Dimude et al teaches cause at least one action to be performed at the wellbore based on the selected result (Dimude et al, Page 24, simulations was very useful in the planning stages of the well clean-up operations, result was an optimized and cost efficient operation) (Dimude et al, Page 25, Model predictions largely agree with field data, thus a history matching under the same parameters to validate the simulation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nasriani et al to incorporate the teachings of Dimude et al to perform an action based on the selected result one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it minimizes clean-up time, avoids formation damage and predefined targets were monitored and recorded to validate the predictive model (Dimude et al, abstract).
Nasriani et al and Dimude et al do not teach simulator in a coupled configuration, output a respective result for each of the one or more facility scenarios based on both simulators in the coupled configuration.
Boronin et al teaches simulator in a coupled configuration (Boronin et al, Page 2204, Fig 1, Integrated modelling framework, multiple simulators coupled together), output a respective result for each of the one or more facility scenarios based on both simulators in the coupled configuration (Boronin et al, Page 2222, Sec 4, compare the impact of geomechanics and rheology effects on oil production during limited flowback period).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nasriani et al and Dimude et al to incorporate the teachings of Boronin et al to output a function based on coupled simulators one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it can perform sensitivity analysis to study the impact of geomechanics and fluid rheology parameters on flowback efficiency (Boronin et al, abstract).
Regarding claim 18. Nasriani et al, Dimude et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 17, wherein the at least one action comprises changing an orifice size of a variable choke, changing a pump speed or pressure, or opening or closing a valve (Boronin et al, Page 2213, Sec 3, bottom-hole pressure in the well decreases according to a certain dynamics of the choke opening).
Regarding claim 19. Nasriani et al, Dimude et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 17, wherein selecting the result comprises selecting the result based on key performance indicators of the respective results or based on receiving a selection of the result from a user (Nasriani et al, Page 332, sec 3.8, using histogram charts, shows the same observation similar to what was reported previously , fig 19, nf is given and relates to the coefficients).
Regarding claim 20. Nasriani et al, Dimude et al and Boronin et al teach the system of claim 17, wherein selecting the result is based on the result comprising preferred operations or orders of operations (Nasriani et al, Page 339, Sec 4, 6, slower cleanup is observed for the tight and ultralight formations, fracturing fluid is not recommended for tight formations whilst it is highly recommended for ultratight formations, thus selecting the result on the preferred operations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yakov Shumankov et al, NPL, “Fast, Environmentally Sound and Efficient Well Clean-Up Operations: Lessons Learned and Best Practices from Operations Around the World”, discloses practical recommendations available that would summarize clean-up experiences and guide operating companies through the process of efficiently planning well clean-up operations. It further discloses challenges during well clean-up operations that have to be balanced with costs and production performance optimization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights