DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, the Applicant’s arguments have been considered but is not persuasive.
Regarding the amendments to claim 1, the Applicant argues that “A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that this step cannot practically2 be performed in the human mind at least because the human mind is not equipped to contain an integrated fracture model nor is the human mind equipped to perform a simulation of the subsurface formation using the integrated fracture model at least due to the complexity and size of data required to represent a subsurface formation and predict fracture locations.”
The Examiner disagrees with the above arguments. The recitation of “predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model” is an abstract idea because the claimed steps of “predicting” and “performing” can definitely be performed in the mind or using pen and paper. A POSITA can mentally imagine or visualize a “subsurface formation” or even draw an image of the subsurface formation using pen and paper and mentally “predict”, using the mental image/drawing of the “contributing fracture locations”. The limitation of “an integrated fracture model” is merely “apply it” because this element contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g. a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, the above limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Applicant argues that “a simulation of the subsurface formation using the integrated fracture model at least due to the complexity and size of data required to represent a subsurface formation..”; however, the recitation of “an integrated fracture model” is very broad and further does not recite any steps as to how this model is formed. Even if the claim does recite such steps, the “integrated fracture model” is merely a means to apply the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that’s significantly more.
The Applicant further argues “claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because claim 1 provides an improvement to the technology of stimulating a subsurface formation. When considered as a whole, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method of claim 1 can identify active natural fractures that are ‘inconspicuous in reservoirs known to be extremely tight with very low permeabilities’ because ‘the natural fractures and fluid contributing zones identified through the diagnostic logs (as explained in above steps 0036-0041) are the target zones for stimulation which otherwise would not be discernible on regular petrophysical logs.’ Specification, [0041]- [0042].”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites a sequence of abstract ideas of “identifying active natural fractures…”, “identifying one or more zone…”, “predicting contributing fractures…” and “validating…” and ultimately these steps result in merely “performing the targeted stimulated at the identified one or more zones”. The claim is basically suggesting “now go stimulate the well based on that prediction/validation of the identified zone” without claiming how the underlying physical process of “stimulating” is specifically being improved. The claim does not recite an improvement/physical change to how the stimulation is being performed differently as a result of the method. Additionally, an operator can analyze the data from the “dynamic well test” and “one or more diagnostic well logs” and use the data to identify and highlight the intervals along subterranean formation with natural fractures. There is no recitation in the claim that prevents someone to perform these steps in the mind or using pen and paper. As such, the claims lacks improvement to the technology itself and further the amendments do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For the above reason, the rejection to claim 1 will be maintained. Furthermore, rejection to claims 10 and 19 will be maintained for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The amendments to the claims 1, 10 and 19 overcome the prior art rejection of record.; however, after further search and consideration the claims have been rejected under new grounds below.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, the claims recite “predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model” which is indefinite because it’s using what element the limitation “using an integrated model” is being applied to. Is the “predicting” step using “an integrated fracture model” OR is the “performing a simulation” step using “an integrated fracture model”. The lack of clarity of the above limitation renders the claims indefinite.
The claims further recite “predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation…” and “validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture location” and it’s unclear what the difference is between the “contributing fracture locations” and “active natural factures and fluid contributing zones” because the claim recites these elements as different features; The disclosure does not define or even mention what “contributing fracture locations” entails. Therefore, the boundaries of the limitation “contributing fracture locations” is unclear and its further unclear how it distinguishes from “active natural factures and fluid contributing zones”.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are also rejected under this statute as the claims depend from claim 1, 10 or 19.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method for performing targeted stimulation of a well (process), claims 10-18 are directed to a system for performing targeted stimulation (machine) and 19-20 is directed to one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage devices for performing targeted stimulation (machine). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the abstract limitation including (or substantially similar to): “identifying natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on the dynamic well test and the one or more diagnostic well logs”, “identifying one or more zones in the well for targeted stimulation, the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore comprising the natural fractures and the fluid contributing zones”, “predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model” and “validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations”.
This limitation, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and
paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners
evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the additional elements of “a well drilled in a subsurface formation”, “an integrated fracture model” and “performing a dynamic well test in the well; logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs prior to stimulating the subsurface formation…performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones.”.
The recitation of “a well drilled in a subsurface formation”, “an integrated fracture model” and “performing a dynamic well test in the well; logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs prior to stimulating the subsurface formation…performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The recitation of “a well drilled in a subsurface formation” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, as taught by Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), additional elements of “cellular telephones” did limit the use of the abstract idea of “providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content”, however the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Regarding the recitation of “performing a dynamic well test in the well” and “logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs prior to stimulating the subsurface formation, the one or more diagnostic well logs measuring one or more wellbore properties along a length of the wellbore”, these elements amount to mere data gathering because these limitations are very generic steps of obtaining information to perform the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The recitation of “an integrated fracture model” amounts to “apply it” because this element contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g. a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Regarding the recitation of “performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones.”, this step amounts to merely “apply it” because this step merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea which is analogous to “A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair” and further does not provide any improvement to the field of stimulation. See In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 19, the limitations of the claims further recites steps which amount to mere data gathering because these limitations are steps of obtaining information to perform the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, similar to claims 1, 10 and 19, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 12-14 recitation limitations which are abstract ideas. Nothing in the claim elements preclude the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claims 1 and 10, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 15, the limitations of claims further recites steps which amount to mere “apply it” because the limitations are nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea without providing any improvement to the field of stimulation. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, similar to claims 1 and 10, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 recite limitations which further add to the “data gathering” steps as indicated above. As such, these limitations are mere steps of obtaining information to perform the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, similar to claims 1 and 10, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the step of “controlling hydrocarbon production equipment to produce hydrocarbons from the well” is well-understood, routine and conventional as disclosed in at least Laing et al. (U.S. Publication No.20220195859). Laing discusses it is well known in the art of oil and production to use pumps landed in the deepest point of a vertically oriented wellbore, or any section of a lined, perforated, open hole or fracture stimulated horizontal wellbore, to lift produced liquids from the reservoir to surface (pp[0002]). As such, similar to claims 1 and 10 this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140058686) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210131242) and in further view of Xia et al (U.S. Publication No. 20220113447 ).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a method for performing targeted stimulation of a well drilled in a subsurface formation, the method comprising:
performing a dynamic well test in the well (injection tests (dynamic well test) to find natural fractures; pp[0023], [0024], Fig. 3,4);
logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs prior to stimulating the subsurface formation (pressure and temperature logging prior to stimulation operation; pp[0025], [0027]), the one or more diagnostic well logs measuring one or more wellbore properties along a length of the wellbore (The injection test is being performed within the wellbore formation during which pressure and temperature is logged. It’s implicit the pressure and temperature are measured along “a length of the wellbore”, i.e. the region within the wellbore where the injection test is occurring);
identifying one or more zones in the well for targeted stimulation (the injection test and pressure/temperature log data allows ones to identify if formation 4 is suited for stimulation operation, i.e. areas with natural fractures; pp[0024]-[0027]) the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore).
Anderson discloses testing the formation of interest intended for hydraulic stimulation but is silent regarding identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on dynamic well test and one or more diagnostic well logs and performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Lee, drawn to a reservoir stimulation operation, discloses performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones (the stimulation operation may comprise hydraulic fracturing performed to fracture the subterranean formation 22, e.g. oil or gas bearing target zone 26; pp[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson such that a hydraulic fracturing operation is performed in the target zone in the wellbore as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, as this will facilitate flow of the desired fluid, i.e. hydrocarbons, along the resulting fracture networks (pp[0028], Lee).
Anderson does disclose the desire to open naturally occurring rock fractures but the combination is silent regarding identifying natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings; predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model; validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations.
Hariharan, drawn to performing logging operation in a wellbore to locate and produce hydrocarbons within subterranean rock formations, discloses identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on dynamic well test and one or more diagnostic well logs (By testing intervals containing fractures and using images to evaluate the nature of the fractures following fluid injection, the example process 700 may determine whether such a complex network of fractures will be created during completion and/or stimulation; pp[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Lee such that the injection test and log data are used to identify active natural fractures, as taught by Hariharan, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting natural fractures will be beneficial for increasing hydrocarbon recovery (pp[0080], Hariharan).
In light of the above modifications, Anderson further discloses the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore comprising the active natural fractures and the fluid contributing zones (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore).
The combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan is silent regarding predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model; validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations.
Xia, drawn to hydraulic fracturing, discloses predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model (Fig. 5 is a graphical representation of a hydraulic fracturing case outputted by the three-dimensional simulation. FIG. 5 may be displayed on an electronic display, or otherwise outputted for user review. A well 312 is provided within a reservoir including a natural fracture network defined by natural fractures 30. The natural fracture network may be predicted; pp[0048]); validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations (Based on the image log processing results, fracture data along the well trajectory may be obtained, which include fracture locations, fracture types, dip angles, dip azimuths, and the like. The fracture data is provided to a fracture modeling simulator and initial data analysis is performed first. Then, fracture data is upscaled into 3D grid; pp[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that the method includes creating a fracture modeling simulator, as taught by Xia, in order to ensure that the hydraulic fractures interact with the natural fractures (Abstract) which will increase permeability of the production zone (pp[0061], [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches a system for performing targeted stimulation of a well drilled in a subsurface formation, the system comprising:
at least one processor (the computer processing system 14; pp[0019], Fig. 1); and
a memory storing instructions that (a non-transitory computer readable medium, including memory (ROMs, RAMs); pp[0031]), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
performing a dynamic well test in the well (injection tests (dynamic well test) to find natural fractures; pp[0023], [0024], Fig. 3,4);
generating one or more diagnostic well logs prior to stimulating the subsurface formation (pressure and temperature logging prior to stimulation operation; pp[0025], [0027]), the one or more diagnostic well logs measuring one or more wellbore properties along a length of the wellbore (The injection test is being performed within the wellbore formation during which pressure and temperature is logged. It’s implicit the pressure and temperature are measured along “a length of the wellbore”, i.e. the region within the wellbore where the injection test is occurring;
identifying one or more zones in the well for targeted stimulation (the injection test and pressure/temperature log data allows ones to identify if formation 4 is suited for stimulation operation, i.e. areas with natural fractures; pp[0024]-[0027]), the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore).
Anderson discloses testing the formation of interest intended for hydraulic stimulation but is silent regarding identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on dynamic well test and one or more diagnostic well logs and performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings; predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model; validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations.
Lee, drawn to a reservoir stimulation operation, discloses performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones (the stimulation operation may comprise hydraulic fracturing performed to fracture the subterranean formation 22, e.g. oil or gas bearing target zone 26; pp[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson such that a hydraulic fracturing operation is performed in the target zone in the wellbore as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, as this will facilitate flow of the desired fluid, i.e. hydrocarbons, along the resulting fracture networks (pp[0028], Lee).
Anderson does disclose the desire to open naturally occurring rock fractures but the combination is silent regarding identifying natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Hariharan, drawn to performing logging operation in a wellbore to locate and produce hydrocarbons within subterranean rock formations, discloses identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on dynamic well test and one or more diagnostic well logs (By testing intervals containing fractures and using images to evaluate the nature of the fractures following fluid injection, the example process 700 may determine whether such a complex network of fractures will be created during completion and/or stimulation; pp[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Lee such that the injection test and log data are used to identify active natural fractures, as taught by Hariharan, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting natural fractures will be beneficial for increasing hydrocarbon recovery (pp[0080], Hariharan).
In light of the above modifications, Anderson further discloses the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore comprising the active natural fractures and the fluid contributing zones (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore).
The combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan is silent regarding predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model; validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations.
Xia, drawn to hydraulic fracturing, discloses predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model (Fig. 5 is a graphical representation of a hydraulic fracturing case outputted by the three-dimensional simulation. FIG. 5 may be displayed on an electronic display, or otherwise outputted for user review. A well 312 is provided within a reservoir including a natural fracture network defined by natural fractures 30. The natural fracture network may be predicted; pp[0048]); validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations (Based on the image log processing results, fracture data along the well trajectory may be obtained, which include fracture locations, fracture types, dip angles, dip azimuths, and the like. The fracture data is provided to a fracture modeling simulator and initial data analysis is performed first. Then, fracture data is upscaled into 3D grid; pp[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that the system includes a fracture modeling simulator, as taught by Xia, in order to ensure that the hydraulic fractures interact with the natural fractures (Abstract) which will increase permeability of the production zone (pp[0061], [0062]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Anderson further teaches wherein logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs comprises: performing at least one spectral noise logging run to generate at least one spectral noise log of the well; and performing at least one high-precision temperature logging run to generate at least one high-precision temperature log of the well (temperature logging performed which provides borehole temperature and time each temperature measured was performed; pp[0017]. Note that the term “high-precision” is a relative term, and there is no specific definition provided of what is high-precision vs. low-precision.).
Regarding claims 3, Anderson further teaches further comprising: selecting a completion design for the well based on the injection test and the one or more diagnostic well logs (the data from the injection test and pressure/temperature log used to design the hydraulic stimulation; pp[0027]); and installing the selected completion design in the well (Results from testing may be used to select a hydraulic stimulation pressure and a formation permeability or injectivity that results from hydraulic stimulation at the selected pressure; pp[0012]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 10 .
Xia further discloses comprising: validating the dynamic well test (202; Fig. 4) and the one or more diagnostic well logs (204) using the integrated fracture model of the subsurface formation (211; Fig. 4, pp[0046]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Anderson further teaches, wherein performing a dynamic test in the well comprises performing at least one of a production test or an injection test on the well (injection tests; pp[0023]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Anderson further teaches wherein the production test uses a different fluid than the injection test (the injection test fluid is “different” in that it is not produced from the wellbore whereas the production test relies on produced fluid from the wellbore).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson further teaches further comprising: selecting a completion design for the well based on the dynamic test and the one or more diagnostic well logs (the data from the injection test and pressure/temperature log used to design the hydraulic stimulation; pp[0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson teaches one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage devices storing instructions for performing targeted stimulation of a well drilled in a subsurface formation(a non-transitory computer readable medium, including memory (ROMs, RAMs); pp[0031]), the instructions being executable by one or more processors, to cause performance of operations comprising:
performing a dynamic well test in the well (injection tests (dynamic well test) to find natural fractures; pp[0023], [0024], Fig. 3,4);
generating one or more diagnostic well logs prior to stimulating the subsurface formation (pressure and temperature logging prior to stimulation operation; pp[0025], [0027]), the one or more diagnostic well logs measuring one or more wellbore properties (the injection test and pressure/temperature log data allows ones to identify if formation 4 is suited for stimulation operation, i.e. areas with natural fractures; pp[0024]-[0027]), along length of the wellbore (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore);
identifying one or more zones in the well for targeted stimulation (the injection test and pressure/temperature log data allows ones to identify if formation 4 is suited for stimulation operation, i.e. areas with natural fractures; pp[0024]-[0027]); and
performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones (injection test and temperature/pressure logging performed in order to perform hydraulic stimulation at a target location; pp[0012],[0027]), the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore comprising the natural fractures and the fluid contributing zones (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore).
Anderson discloses testing the formation of interest intended for hydraulic stimulation but is silent regarding identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on dynamic well test and one or more diagnostic well logs and performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings; predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model; validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations.
Lee, drawn to a reservoir stimulation operation, discloses performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones (the stimulation operation may comprise hydraulic fracturing performed to fracture the subterranean formation 22, e.g. oil or gas bearing target zone 26; pp[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson such that a hydraulic fracturing operation is performed in the target zone in the wellbore as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, as this will facilitate flow of the desired fluid, i.e. hydrocarbons, along the resulting fracture networks (pp[0028], Lee).
Anderson does disclose the desire to open naturally occurring rock fractures but the combination is silent regarding identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Hariharan, drawn to performing logging operation in a wellbore to locate and produce hydrocarbons within subterranean rock formations, discloses identifying active natural fractures and fluid contributing zones in the subsurface formation based on dynamic well test and one or more diagnostic well logs (By testing intervals containing fractures and using images to evaluate the nature of the fractures following fluid injection, the example process 700 may determine whether such a complex network of fractures will be created during completion and/or stimulation; pp[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and Lee such that the injection test and log data are used to identify natural fractures, as taught by Hariharan, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting natural fractures will be beneficial for increasing hydrocarbon recovery (pp[0080], Hariharan).
In light of the above modifications, Anderson further discloses the one or more zones being intervals in the well along the length of the wellbore comprising the natural fractures and the fluid contributing zones (the areas with natural fractures will be along the length of the wellbore).
The combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan is silent regarding predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model; validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations.
Xia, drawn to hydraulic fracturing, discloses predicting contributing fracture locations in the subsurface formation by performing a simulation of the subsurface formation using an integrated fracture model (Fig. 5 is a graphical representation of a hydraulic fracturing case outputted by the three-dimensional simulation. FIG. 5 may be displayed on an electronic display, or otherwise outputted for user review. A well 312 is provided within a reservoir including a natural fracture network defined by natural fractures 30. The natural fracture network may be predicted; pp[0048]); validating that the identified one or more zones comprise active natural factures and fluid contributing zones using the predicted contributing fracture locations (Based on the image log processing results, fracture data along the well trajectory may be obtained, which include fracture locations, fracture types, dip angles, dip azimuths, and the like. The fracture data is provided to a fracture modeling simulator and initial data analysis is performed first. Then, fracture data is upscaled into 3D grid; pp[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that the method includes creating a fracture modeling simulator, as taught by Xia, in order to ensure that the hydraulic fractures interact with the natural fractures (Abstract) which will increase permeability of the production zone (pp[0061], [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson further teaches wherein generating one or more diagnostic well logs comprises: generating at least one spectral noise log of the well; and generating at least one high precision temperature log of the well (temperature logging performed which provides borehole temperature and time each temperature measured was performed; pp[0017])., wherein performing a dynamic test in the well comprises performing at least one of a production test or an injection teston the well (injection tests; pp[0023]).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140058686) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210131242), Hariharan et al (U.S. Publication No. 20120150515), Xia et al (U.S. Publication No. 20220113447 ) and in further view of Dusterhoft et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20150233214).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination teaches the method of claim 4 and system of claim 13.
The combination is silent regarding wherein the integrated fracture model comprises a three-dimensional natural fractures model using a fracture density index; and a three-dimensional mechanical stratigraphy model using a brittleness index.
Dusterhoft, drawn to a well placement and fracture design, discloses the integrated fracture model comprises a three-dimensional natural fractures model using a fracture density index; and a three-dimensional mechanical stratigraphy model using a brittleness index (earth modeling module 114 may capture all of the key parameters required to populate a reservoir simulator to predict production capability, as well as those parameters required to populate a fracture simulator module 112. The key parameters includes Brittleness Index and natural fracture density; pp[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with the 3D earth model of Dusterhoft which includes key parameters such as brittleness Index and natural fracture density, as this will help better predict production capability and fracture dimensions (pp[0032]).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140058686) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210131242), Hariharan et al (U.S. Publication No. 20120150515), Xia et al (U.S. Publication No. 20220113447 ) and in further view of Jaaskelainen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190094480).
Regarding claims 6 and 15,the combination of Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 10.
However, the combination of A Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia is silent regarding performing the targeted stimulation comprises performing hydrajet-assisted hydraulic fracturing.
Anderson does disclose hydraulic fracturing (pp[0027]) but does not specify a type of hydraulic fracturing method which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Jaaskelainen, drawn to a fracturing and monitoring system, discloses performing the targeted stimulation comprises performing hydrajet-assisted hydraulic fracturing (The BHA 1011 may further include a hydrajet tool apparatus for selectively fracturing or perforating the wellbore; pp[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic fracturing of the combination of Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia such that it comprises a hydrajet tool, as taught by Jaaskelainen, in order to selectively fracture the wellbore at the desired locations (pp[0039]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140058686) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210131242), Hariharan et al (U.S. Publication No. 20120150515), Xia et al (U.S. Publication No. 20220113447 ) and in further view of Laing et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20220195859).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the combination of Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 10.
The combination of Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia is silent regarding controlling hydrocarbon production equipment to produce hydrocarbons from the well.
Laing, drawn to downhole flow management system, discloses controlling hydrocarbon production equipment to produce hydrocarbons from the well (t is well known in the art of oil and gas production to use pumps landed in the deepest point of a vertically oriented wellbore, or any section of a lined, perforated, open hole or fracture stimulated horizontal wellbore, to lift produced liquids from the reservoir to surface; pp[0002], [0054], [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson, Lee, Hariharan and Xia with a downhole pump, as taught by Laing, in order to facilitate in lifting produced liquids from the reservoir to surface (pp[0002]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached on (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights