(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 .
The amendment filed on January 14, 2026 has been considered.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s traversal and amendment, filed on January 14, 2026, in the reply to the restriction requirement, filed on December 16, 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: after “16/490,616” (paragraph 0001, line 2), should insert -- , now US patent 11,796,362, --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the choke (claims 9, 10) and the sand separator (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16, after “fluid flow data” (line 7), should insert -- , which is --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 10, and 16 recite an abstract idea of “detect a presence of a solid slug in the flow path of the fluid conduit based on the brine conductivity data, wherein the solid slug comprises sand” (mental process), “applying a correction to fluid flow data generated by a flow meter during flow of a multiphase fluid through the flow meter to generate corrected fluid flow data, the correction based on brine conductivity data generated by a conductivity probe during flow of the multiphase fluid through a conduit coupled to the flow meter” (mental process/mathematical concept)
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). The conductivity probe coupled to the fluid conduit and configured to generate brine conductivity data of the fluid is directed to performing an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)). The conductivity probe coupled to the fluid conduit and configured to generate brine conductivity data is also directed to a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 4-7, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 16 and their respective dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1, 2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,362 (to Theuveny et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Theuveny et al. (‘362) anticipates:
1. An apparatus (claim 1) comprising:
a fluid conduit to provide a flow path for a fluid (claim 1, lines 3-4);
a conductivity probe (28) coupled to the fluid conduit and configured to generate brine conductivity data of the fluid (claim 1, lines 5-6); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the conductivity probe (claim 1, lines 8-9), wherein the processor is configured to detect a presence of a solid slug in the flow path of the fluid conduit based on the brine conductivity data, wherein the solid slug comprises sand (claim 1, lines 12-15).
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductivity probe is coupled to the fluid conduit downstream of a flow meter coupled to the fluid conduit (claim 2).
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a bottom-hole pressure based on a change in a brine salinity value of the fluid derived from the brine conductivity data (claim 5).
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to modify fluid flow data generated by a flow meter by modifying a gamma-ray water attenuation coefficient based on a brine salinity value derived from the brine conductivity data (claim 3).
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to detect a change in a brine salinity value of the fluid over time based on the brine conductivity data, and wherein the processor is further configured to identify a change in a reservoir fluid chemistry based on the detection of the change in the brine salinity value (claim 6).
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductivity probe is a radio frequency probe (claim 4).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,362 (to Theuveny et al.).
in view of Xie et al. (US 2016/0169726).
While Theuveny et al. (‘362) does not claim the conductivity probe is disposed on a vertical end flange of the flow meter, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Xie et al. (‘726). Xie et al. (‘726) discloses a conductivity probe is disposed on a vertical end flange of the flow meter (Fig. 2) for compensating for changes in a property of water.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,362 (to Theuveny et al.).
in view of Wee (US 2009/0088985).
Regarding claim 9, while Theuveny et al. (‘362) does not claim the conductivity probe is disposed downstream of a choke, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Wee. Wee discloses a conductivity probe (7) is disposed downstream of a choke (narrow section of pipe 21) (probe 7 is downstream of a choke 21, Fig. 8) for measuring flow/fluid data (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 10, while Theuveny et al. (‘362) does not claim at least one of a choke or a sand separator is located between a flow meter and the conductivity probe, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Wee. Wee discloses at least one of a choke (21) is located between a flow meter (33) and the conductivity probe (7) (Fig. 8) for measuring flow/fluid data (paragraph 0047).
It is noted that at least one of a sand separator is located between a flow meter and the conductivity probe is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9, 12, and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,362 (to Theuveny et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Theuveny et al. (‘362) anticipates:
11. A method (claim 7; claim 12; claim 16), comprising:
generating brine conductivity data of a fluid flowing through a conduit with a conductivity probe (claim 7, lines 2-3; claim 12, lines 5-6; claim 16, lines 5-6); and
identifying a presence of a solid slug in the fluid flowing through the conduit based on the brine conductivity data, wherein the solid slug is a sand slug (claim 7, lines 17-20; claim 12, lines 11-14; claim 16, lines 11-14).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the generated brine conductivity data is based on a first set of correction factors and a second set of correction factors for the conductivity probe (claim 7, lines 4-6; claim 17/16).
13. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
applying a correction to flow data generated by a flow meter during the flow of the fluid through the conduit (claim 7, lines 7-8; claim 12, lines 2-3; claim 16, lines 2-3); and
determining one or more of a hold up or a flow rate of a phase of the fluid based on the corrected fluid flow data (claim 7, lines 11-13; claim 14; claim 16, lines 8-10).
15. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data
(claim 12, lines 15-16; claim 16, lines 15-16);
updating a density of a brine in the fluid based on the detected change in salinity (claim 15; claim 19); and
determining a bottom-hole pressure based on the updated density of the brine (claim 15; claim 19).
16. A method (claim 7; claim 12, claim 16) comprising:
applying a correction to fluid flow data generated by a flow meter during flow of a multiphase fluid through the flow meter to generate corrected fluid flow data, the correction based on brine conductivity data (claim 7, lines 7-10) generated by a conductivity probe during flow of the multiphase fluid through a conduit coupled to the flow meter (claim 7, lines 3-6; claim 12, lines 2-7; claim 16, lines 2-7); and
identifying a presence of a solid slug in the multiphase fluid flowing through the conduit based on the corrected fluid flow data based on the brine conductivity data, wherein the solid slug is a sand slug (claim 7, lines 17-20; claim 12, lines 11-14; claim 17, lines 11-14).
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising:
determining one or more of a holdup or a flow rate of a phase of the multiphase fluid based on the corrected fluid flow data (claim 7, lines 11-13; claim 12, lines 8-10; claim 16, lines 8-10).
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising:
detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data (claim 7, lines 14-15; claim 12, lines 15-16; claim 16, lines 13-14); and
identifying a change in reservoir fluid chemistry based on the detected change in
salinity (claim 7, lines 15-16; claim 12, lines 18-19; claim 16, lines 17-18).
19. The method of claim 16, wherein applying the correction to the fluid flow data includes modifying a gamma-ray water attenuation coefficient (claim 9).
20. The method of claim 16, further comprising:
detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data
(claim 12, lines 15-16; claim 16, lines 15-16);
updating a density of a brine in the fluid based on the detected change in salinity (claim 15; claim 19); and
determining a bottom-hole pressure based on the updated density of the brine (claim 15; claim 19).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2016/0169726) in view of Xie et al. (US 6,831,470) and Van Niekerk (US 2021/0101113).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Xie et al. (‘726) discloses an apparatus and method (10) comprising:
a fluid conduit (30) to provide a flow path for a fluid (Fig. 2);
a probe (28) coupled to the fluid conduit (Fig. 2)
a processor (16) communicatively coupled to the probe (Fig. 1).
Xie et al. (‘726) does not disclose the probe is configured to generate brine conductivity data of the fluid. Xie et al. (‘726) discloses flow of brine water (paragraph 0022, lines 32-33).
Xie et al. (‘470) discloses a conductivity probe configured to generate brine conductivity data of the fluid flow (column 1, lines 2-6) for making corrections of a flow meter (Abstract, lines 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. (‘726) with a conductivity probe as disclosed by Xie et al. (‘470) for the purpose of generating brine conductivity data of the fluid for making corrections of a flow meter.
Xie et al. (‘726) as modified by Xie et al. (‘470) does not disclose the processor is configured to detect a presence of a solid slug in the flow path of the fluid conduit based on the brine conductivity data, wherein the solid slug comprises sand.
Van Niekerk discloses a processor (control system, paragraph 0122, lines 3-4) is configured to detect a presence of a solid slug (detect sand to filter, paragraph 0122, lines 6-7) based on the brine conductivity data (sand is detected to be filtered based on the conductivity in the brine, paragraph 0122, lines 3-7), wherein the solid slug comprises sand (sand, paragraph 0122, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. (‘726) as modified with a brine conductivity data as disclosed by Van Niekerk for the purpose of detect a presence of sand for removing the sand.
Regarding claim 2, Xie et al. (‘726) discloses the probe (28) is coupled to the fluid conduit (30) downstream of a flow meter (14) coupled to the fluid conduit (the probe 30 is coupled to the conduit 30 downstream of the flow meter 14 is coupled to the conduit 30, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Xie et al. (‘726) discloses the probe (28) is disposed on a vertical end flange of the flow meter (14) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Xie et al. ('726) does not disclose the processor is to determine a bottom-hole pressure based on a change in a brine salinity value of the fluid derived from the brine conductivity data.
Xie et al. ('470) discloses correlations between pressure, salinity, and conductivity (claim 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide a processor to determine a bottom-hole pressure based on a change in a brine salinity value of the fluid derived from the brine conductivity data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) with salinity and conductivity data as suggested by Xie et al. ('470) for the purpose of determining a bottom-hole pressure.
Regarding claim 5, Xie et al. ('726) discloses the processor is to modify the fluid flow data by modifying a gamma-ray water attenuation coefficient based on a brine salinity value (compensate for changes in the property of water (e.g. saline) by determining values for nuclear mass attenuation coefficients for water based on complex permittivities measured using correlations, claim 11, lines 6-14).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Xie et al. ('726) discloses the processor is configured to modify fluid flow data generated by a flow meter (14) (adjusting values to determine measurements of flow meter, i.e., fluid flow data, paragraph 0035, lines 17-21) by a flow meter (14) based on the brine data (saline data);
determining one or more of a flow rate for a phase of the multiphase fluid based on the modified fluid flow data (paragraph 0046, lines 1-12; steps 156, 158, Fig. 7; paragraph 0035, lines 17-21).
It is noted that determining one or more of a holdup for a phase of the multiphase fluid based on the modified fluid flow data is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 8, Xie et al. (‘726) discloses the probe is a radio frequency probe (paragraph 0022, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 12, while Xie et al. ('726) does not disclose generating brine conductivity data is based on a first set of correction factors and a second set of correction factors for the conductivity probe, Xie et al. ('470) discloses generating brine conductivity data by a conductivity probe during flow of a multiphase fluid through a conduit of a flow meter based on correction for the conductivity probe (column 13, lines 1-8). Xie et al. ('470) further discloses monitoring of water salinity change will provide continuous update of the flowmeter calibration (column 15, lines 31-33). It would have been obvious to provide the continuous updates with a first set of correction factors and a second set of correction factors for the conductivity probe (flowmeter) calibration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) with a first set of correction factors and a second set of correction factors as suggested by Xie et al. ('470) for the purpose of calibrating the conductivity probe.
Regarding claim 16, Xie et al. (‘726) discloses applying a correction to fluid flow data generated by a flow meter (14) (adjusting values to determine measurements of flow meter, i.e., fluid flow data, paragraph 0035, lines 17-21) during flow of a multiphase fluid (paragraph 0035, lines 18-20) through the flow meter (14) to generate corrected fluid flow data (adjusting values to determine measurements of flow meter, i.e., fluid flow data, paragraph 0035, lines 17- 21), the correction based on brine data (saline data) generated by a probe (28) during flow of the multiphase fluid through the conduit (14) (paragraph 0035, lines 8-9) coupled to the flow meter (14) (Fig. 2).
Xie et al. (‘726) does not disclose identifying a presence of a solid slug in the multiphase fluid flowing through conduit based on corrected fluid flow data based on the brine conductivity data, wherein the solid slug comprises sand.
Van Niekerk discloses a processor (control system, paragraph 0122, lines 3-4) is configured to detect a presence of a solid slug (detect sand to filter, paragraph 0122, lines 6-7) based on the brine conductivity data (sand is detected to be filtered based on the conductivity in the brine, paragraph 0122, lines 3-7), wherein the solid slug comprises sand (sand, paragraph 0122, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. (‘726) with a brine conductivity data as disclosed by Van Niekerk for the purpose of detecting a presence of sand for removing the sand.
Regarding claim 17, Xie et al. ('726) discloses determining one or more of a flow rate for a phase of the multiphase fluid based on the modified fluid flow data (paragraph 0046, lines 1-12; steps 156, 158, Fig. 7; paragraph 0035, lines 17-21).
It is noted that determining one or more of a holdup for a phase of the multiphase fluid based on the modified fluid flow data is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 19, Xie et al. ('726) discloses an equation of gamma-ray attenuation coefficients (paragraph 0030). It would have been obvious to modify the attenuation coefficients to correct the fluid data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) with modifying attenuation coefficients for the purpose of correction of the fluid data.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (‘726) in view of Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (EP 2251433).
Regarding claim 6, Xie et al. ('726) as modified by Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data and identifying a change in fluid chemistry based on the detection of the change in the brine salinity value.
Lewis et al. discloses detecting a change in salinity (salinity, paragraph 0021, line 18) over time based on the brine conductivity data (concentration data of salt, paragraph 0021, lines 17-18) and identifying a change in fluid chemistry based on the detection for controlling a chemical process (paragraph 0021, lines 15-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) as modified with detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data as suggested by Lewis et al. for the purpose of identifying a change in fluid chemistry for controlling a chemical process (paragraph 0021, lines 15-18).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (‘726) in view of Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wee (US 2009/0088985).
Regarding claim 9, Xie et al. (‘726) as modified by Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the conductivity probe is disposed downstream of a choke.
Wee discloses a conductivity probe (7) is disposed downstream of a choke (narrow section of pipe 21) (probe 7 is downstream of a choke 21, Fig. 8) for measuring flow/fluid data (paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) as modified with a conductivity probe is disposed downstream of a choke as disclosed by Wee for the purpose of measuring flow/fluid data.
Regarding claim 10, Xie et al. (‘726) as modified by Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except at least one of a choke or a sand separator is located between a flow meter and the conductivity probe.
Wee discloses at least one of a choke (21) is located between a flow meter (33) and the conductivity probe (7) (Fig. 8) for measuring flow/fluid data (paragraph 0047).
It is noted that at least one of a sand separator is located between a flow meter and the conductivity probe is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) as modified with at least one of a choke is located between a flow meter and the conductivity probe as disclosed by Wee for the purpose of measuring flow/fluid data.
Claims 14, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (‘726) in view of Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Willberg et al. (US 2018/0016897).
Regarding claim 14, Xie et al. ('726) as modified by Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk does not disclose detecting a change in fracture chemistry based on changes in the brine conductivity data.
Willberg et al. discloses detecting a change in fracture chemistry (distinct measurement in time of the equivalent process between the fracturing fluid and formation chemistry, paragraph 0065, lines 5-7) based on changes in the brine conductivity data (salinity measurement, paragraph 0065, lines 7-8) (measurement of the equivalent process between the fracturing fluid and formation chemistry can also be based on salinity measurement, paragraph 0065, lines 4-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) as modified with brine conductivity data as disclosed by Willberg et al. for the purpose of detecting a change in fracture chemistry.
Regarding claims 15, 18, and 20, Xie et al. ('726) as modified by Xie et al. (‘470) and Van Niekerk does not disclose detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data.
Willberg et al. discloses detecting a change in salinity over time based on the brine conductivity data (paragraph 0065, lines 17-24) for identifying a change in reservoir fracture geometry (paragraph 0065, lines 23-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Xie et al. ('726) as modified with determining a change in slope of the salinity versus square root of the time (T¹²) (paragraph 0065, lines 17-24) as disclosed by Willberg et al. for the purpose of identifying a change in reservoir fracture geometry.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 9, 2026