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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
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 claims 1, 10 and 19, the Applicant argues that “the features of claim 1 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to the technology of stimulating a subsurface formation. The features of claim 1 include ‘performing a dynamic well test . . . logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs ... identifying natural fractures and fluid contributing zones . . . identifying one or more zones in the well for targeted stimulation . . . and performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones’ improve the technology of stimulating a wellbore for hydrocarbon production. The features of claim 1 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because the features of claim impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea. For example, as discussed in the Specification, not all fractures in a subsurface formation are active contributing fractures following a fracture treatment..”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. The steps of “performing a dynamic well test . . . logging the well to generate one or more diagnostic well logs” are merely steps of gathering data and are not significantly more than the abstract idea in claim 1.
The amended steps of “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” and “identifying one or more zones in the well for targeted stimulation…” are abstract ideas because these steps can be performed in the mind or using pen and paper. 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.
The Applicant states that an “as discussed in the Specification, not all fractures in a subsurface formation are active contributing fractures following a fracture treatment” and further “The features of claim 1 improve the stimulation of the well bore by identifying natural fractures that are ‘inconspicuous in reservoirs known to be extremely tight with very low permeabilities.’ Id, [0041]. Further, ‘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.’ Id., [0042]. These processes can identify fractures that are not readily apparent from conventional petrophysical logs, reduce wasted perforations, reduce breakdown pressures and inconsistent breakdown and treating pressures, minimize proppant screen-out, and avoid fracturing non-productive rock”
However, the claims do not recite any limitation that illustrates that the “active contributing fractures” are distinguished from natural fractures that are not active. If this is an improvement to the state of the art of stimulation, then the claim should recite limitations to achieve this improvement. pp[0041] states that “Using diagnostic well logs in injection and production modes can reveal the presence (or absence) of natural fractures inconspicuous in reservoirs known to be extremely tight with very low permeabilities” However, these improvements are not reflected in the claims. The claims recite steps of data gathering which are used to perform “targeted stimulation” which is well-understood, routine and conventional concept in the art.
For at least the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection below.
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” and “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”
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” 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” 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).
Regarding the recitation of “performing the targeted stimulation at the identified one or more zones.” 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 3-5 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 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) 1-3, 8-12 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 Hariharan et al (U.S. Publication No. 20120150515).
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 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.
Hariharan, drawn to performing logging operation in a wellbore to locate and produce hydrocarbons within subterranean rock formations, discloses identifying 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).
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 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.
Hariharan, drawn to performing logging operation in a wellbore to locate and produce hydrocarbons within subterranean rock formations, discloses identifying 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).
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 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 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.
Hariharan, drawn to performing logging operation in a wellbore to locate and produce hydrocarbons within subterranean rock formations, discloses identifying 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).
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]).
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) and in further view of Jaaskelainen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190094480).
Regarding claims 6 and 15,the combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 10.
However, the combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan 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 and Hariharan 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) and in further view of Laing et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20220195859).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 10.
The combination of Anderson, Lee and Hariharan 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 and Hariharan with a downhole pump, as taught by Laing, in order to facilitate in lifting produced liquids from the reservoir to surface (pp[0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 are not rejected over prior art; however, these claims are not allowable as they have been rejected under 101 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Anderson teaches performing the claimed injection test and one or more diagnostic tests. However, Anderson fails to teach validating the injection test and the one or more diagnostic well logs using an integrated fracture model of the subsurface formation.
It would not be obvious to modify Anderson with the above limitations because no prior art was found, alone or in combination with Anderson, to teach validating the injection test and the one or more diagnostic well logs using an integrated fracture model of the subsurface formation. Therefore, modifying Anderson with this feature would be based on improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
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