DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are pending, of which claim 1 and 7 are amended.
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment, the examiner modifies rejection over the prior art established in the previous Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2021/0405017, IDS) (May) in view of ISO 10414-1, 2001.
Regarding claim 1, May teaches a method for assessing a quality of an amine-based shale inhibitor (abstract), comprising:
establishing a relationship between a concentration of an amine-based shale inhibitor in a drilling fluid and turbidity (par [0028]), wherein establishing the relationship comprises:
preparing a plurality of drilling fluid solutions with a plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor, each drilling fluid solution having a distinct concentration of the amine-based shale inhibitor (par [0012] [0028]);
wherein preparing the plurality of drilling fluid solutions comprises: obtaining a plurality of samples of a drilling fluid (par [0013] [0028]);
mixing an amount of each mud filtrate with an amount of amine precipitating reagent (par [0014] [0028]);
allowing the plurality of drilling fluid solutions to form precipitates (par [0012] [0027]);
analyzing turbidity of the plurality of drilling fluid solutions (par [0015] [0028]);
obtaining one or more samples of a drilling fluid with an unknown concentration of amine-based shale inhibitor (par [0013][0023][0030]); and
using the established relationship, estimating a concentration of the amine-based shale inhibitor in the one or more samples of the drilling fluid (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, May teaches collecting a mud filtrate from each water-based drilling fluid sample (par [0010] [0014]); and
mixing an amount of each mud filtrate with an amount of an amine precipitating reagent (par [0010]).
However, May does not expressly teach that its filtration is performed as a low-temperature and low-pressure fluid-loss measurement. ISO 10414-1 teaches that missing feature.
ISO 10414-1 explains the reason for conducting defined low-pressure/low-temperature filtration testing:
“Measurement of the filtration behaviour and filter cake-building characteristics of a drilling fluid are fundamental to drilling-fluid control and treatment, as are the characteristics of the filtrate such as oil, water or emulsion content.”
“These characteristics are affected by the types and quantities of solids in the fluid and their physical and chemical interactions which, in turn, are affected by temperature and pressure. Therefore, tests are run at both low pressure/low temperature and high pressure/high temperature, and each requires different equipment and techniques.” (section 7.1).
ISO 10414-1 then expressly identifies a:
“Low temperature/low pressure test” (section 7.2).
For each drilling-fluid sample, ISO 10414-1 instructs:
“Pour the drilling fluid sample into the cell to within 1 cm to 1,5 cm (0,4 in to 0,6 in) of the top … and complete the assembly with the filter paper in place.” (section 7.2.2.1).
ISO 10414-1 applies low pressure and collects the resulting filtrate:
“Place a dry graduated cylinder under the drain tube to collect the filtrate. Close the relief valve and adjust the regulator so that a pressure of 690 kPa ± 35 kPa (100 psi ± 5 psi) is applied within 30 s or less.” (section 7.2.2.2).
It further instructs:
“At the end of 30 min, measure the volume of filtrate collected.”
“Save the filtrate for chemical analysis.” (section 7.2.2.3–7.2.2.4).
Accordingly, ISO 10414-1 expressly teaches performing a low-temperature and low-pressure fluid-loss measurement on a drilling-fluid sample, applying approximately 100 psi for 30 minutes, collecting the discharged mud filtrate in a graduated cylinder, and retaining that filtrate for subsequent chemical analysis. Repeating the disclosed procedure for each of May’s known-concentration samples produces the claimed corresponding mud filtrates.
May and ISO 10414-1 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. Both relate to testing and chemically analyzing water-based drilling fluids. May teaches an amine-based shale-inhibitor testing method in which a drilling-fluid filtrate is reacted with an anion and analyzed to determine inhibitor concentration, while ISO 10414-1 teaches the standardized low-temperature and low-pressure procedure for producing and collecting drilling-fluid filtrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify May’s amine-based shale-inhibitor testing method by obtaining May’s filtrates using the low-temperature and low-pressure fluid-loss procedure of ISO 10414-1 because ISO teaches that drilling-fluid filtration behavior and filtrate characteristics are affected by temperature and pressure and therefore require defined equipment and techniques. ISO 10414-1 further expressly instructs the operator to “[s]ave the filtrate for chemical analysis” (ISO 10414-1, § 7.2.2.4), demonstrating that the filtrate produced by the standardized procedure is intended for downstream chemical testing of the type performed by May. The modification would provide a controlled and standardized procedure for obtaining corresponding drilling-fluid filtrates for May’s subsequent precipitation and turbidity analysis.
Regarding claim 2, May teaches that the method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing turbidity of the one or more samples of the drilling fluid (par [0030][0015]).
Regarding claim 3, May teaches that wherein analyzing turbidity of the one or more samples of the drilling fluid comprises determining turbidity values for the one or more samples of the drilling fluid based on absorption intensities obtained from a turbidimeter (par [0015][0010]).
Regarding claim 4, May teaches that wherein the estimated concentration is correlated to a quality of the amine-based shale inhibitor in the one or more samples of the drilling fluid (par [0017] [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, May teaches that “the methods include receiving a sample of drilling fluid. The sample may be obtained from a wellbore operation. The drilling fluid may include water, a brine, or a hydrocarbon fluid. The water may be fresh water, seawater, or salt water, for example. The hydrocarbon fluid may be mineral oils, biodegradable esters, olefins, or other variants” (par 0013]). Here, May broadly teaches sampling drilling fluids without restricting timing. Drilling fluids are prepared prior to drilling and sampled for testing. Thus, May fairly suggests that samples can be obtained prior to drilling operations.
Regarding claim 6, May teaches that “The drilling fluid may be circulated past the drill bit 50 and returned to the surface through the annulus of wellbore 44, as indicated by arrows 46, thereby removing drill cuttings (e.g., material such as rock generated by the drilling) from the wellbore 44.” (par [0022]). Here, May fairly suggests that wherein the one or more samples of the drilling fluid are obtained from a circulating drilling fluid during a drilling operation (par [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, May teaches that “A concentration of quaternary ammonium-based shale inhibitor in the drilling fluid may be adjusted based on the amount of the precipitate in the test solution. The methods described herein may be performed in the field at the site of the well bore.” (par [0017]). Thus, May fairly suggests that wherein one or more samples of the drilling fluid are obtained prior to a drilling operation and from a circulating drilling fluid during a drilling operation.
Regarding claim 8, May teaches that wherein analyzing turbidity of the plurality of drilling solutions comprises determining turbidity values for the plurality of drilling fluid solutions based on absorption intensities obtained from a turbidimeter (par [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, May teaches that wherein the established relationship is visualized as a calibration plot (Fig. 6, par [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, May teaches that wherein preparing the plurality of drilling fluid solutions comprises formulating a plurality of water-based drilling fluid samples having a plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, May teaches that wherein the amine precipitating reagent is Reinecke' s salt (par [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, May teaches that wherein the plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor range from 0 pounds per barrel (ppb) to 10ppb (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, May teaches that wherein the plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor range from 1 ppb to 2ppb (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, May teaches that wherein the plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor range from 2ppb to 4ppb (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 16, May teaches that wherein the plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor range from 4ppb to 6ppb (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, May fairly suggests that wherein the plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor range from 6ppb to 8ppb (par [0028]).
Regarding claim 18, May teaches that wherein the plurality of varying concentrations of the amine-based shale inhibitor range from 8ppb to 10ppb (par [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 XIAOYUN R XU, Ph. D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254. 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.
/XIAOYUN R XU, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights