DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, line 2, “the wellbore” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim; and Claim 8 recites “computer readable medium” and the specification defines media to include communication media with no express disclaimer excluding transitory signals, so under BRI it reads on a signal, per se. Applicant should amend to “non- transitory computer readable storage medium”, or equivalent; Claim 18, “the third and fourth relationships” lack proper antecedent basis . Appropriate correction s are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being unpatentable over KABRICH et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0287760 A1 (hereinafter: ‘760). With respect to claim 1, we will break down claim 1 into its 5 limitations ( as interpreted ) , and we will base any rejection (using ‘ 760 ) on the interpretation s. That being said, and with respect to claim 1, ‘760 appears to adequately disclose a method comprising : systematically changing a control setting value used during wellbore treatment (e.g., See ‘760; [0034] and [0054], which collectively disclose that during fracturing, an optimization program streams data and iteratively adjusts operating settings); monitoring an operation measurement as the control setting value is changed (e.g., See ‘760; [0038], [0044] and [0050], which collectively disclose continuously monitoring wellhead pressure and other operating data as the system operates); building a relationship between the control settings, measurements, and a cost function (e.g., See ‘760; [0034] , [0037] and [0054], which collectively disclose relating operating parameters, streamed measurements, and cost objectives via an optimization algorithm); selecting a new control setting value that optimizes the cost function (e.g., See ‘760; [0037] and [0054], which collectively disclose choosing new operating setting values that minimize operating cost using the optimization algorithm); and adjusting the wellbore treatment using the new control setting value (e.g., See ‘760; [0047] and [0054], which collectively disclose sending control signals that operate the fracturing equipment using the determined optimized settings). With respect to claim 8, the rejections and rationale set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 are incorporated herein. Further, ‘760 discloses the utilization of a processor and pumps (e.g., See ‘760; [0017] , [0030], [0031] and [0047]). With respect to claim 14, the rejections and rationale set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 are incorporated herein. Further, ‘760 discloses the utilization of a non-transitory computer readable storage media (e.g., See ‘760; [0031], [0032] and [0043]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 2 - 3 , 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KABRICH et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0287760 A1 (hereinafter: ‘760), in view of Yeung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021 / 0396115 ( hereinafter: ‘115) . As per claim 2, ’760 does not specifically disclose altering, during the wellbore treatment operation, a material concentration at a plurality of set points . ‘115 discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘115; [0009], [0038] , [0055] and [0071] , which collectively disclose altering, during fracturing, proppant or chemical amounts across multiple pumping stages) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘115 into ‘760 for the purpose of automatically setting and changing stage-based material concentration ( slurry mix ) targets at a plurality of set points, thereby reducing manual errors, improving repeatability, and lowering operating costs. As per claim 3, ‘760+’115 further discloses that monitoring, during the wellbore treatment operation, changes in the first operation parameter over the plurality of set points (e.g., See ‘115; [00 09 ] , [0073] and [007 4 ], which disclose performing a fracturing plan across multiple pump stages using stage profiles that include pressure or flow related setpoints (max pressure and/or rate targets) and comparing measured pressure against the stage profile target during a stage. Further, ‘760; [0038] and [0044], disclose continuously monitoring treatment measurements in real time , including receiving the measurements as a data stream. Together, the combination of ‘115+’760 collectively disclose monitoring , during the wellbore treatment operations, changes in the first operation parameter over the plurality of set points). As per claims 9 and 15, the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 2, from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim s 9 and 15 . As per claims 10 and 1 6 , the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 3 , from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim s 10 and 16. Claim s 4-7 , 11-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KABRICH et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0287760 A1 (hereinafter: ‘760), in view of Yeung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021 / 0396115 ( hereinafter: ‘115) , in further view of Abad U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0224365 A1 (hereinafter: ‘365). As per claim 4, and as best understood, even though ‘760+’115 discloses monitoring and changing treatment parameters across multiple stage set points, there is not an adequate teaching of a second relationship between changes in controllable variables and changes in an operation parameter, integrating that second relationship, and then determining a third relationship based on that integration. ‘365 discloses the missing features (e.g., See ‘365; [0054], [0065], [0066], [0117] and [0118], which collectively disclose using equation-based models with monitored stream feedback to generate a PI/PID control action that updates setpoints, thereby relating controllable changes to pressure changes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘365 into ‘760+’115 for the purpose of using real time model feedback and PI/PID integration to update pressure setpoints automatically, thereby improving control and stage consistency. As per claim 5, and as best understood, ‘760 discloses using an optimization objective (minimizing operating cost) with cost related inputs to select optimized operating parameters (pump pressure or flow) and output them for use in control signals (e.g., See ‘760; [0036], [0037] and [0054]). Further, ‘365 discloses predicting treatment behavior (pressure) during the treatment and using an online control approach (PI/PID) to update setpoints during the treatment (e.g., See ‘365; [0115], [0117] and [0118]). Further, ‘115 discloses stage profiles that include pressure or flow targets and slurry mix setpoints, and using those profile values to operate equipment (pumps) (e.g., See ‘115; [0063], [0064] and [0071]). Collectively, it would have been obvious to choose stage targets that meet a cost goal, update the pressure or flow target as treatment pressure behavior is predicted, and determine corresponding slurry mix setpoints (controllable variables) based on the updated pressure or flow target. As per claim 6, ‘365 discloses generating a real time model of the treatment using equations and monitored stream inputs (i.e., as a model relating controllable inputs to pressure behavior) (e.g., See ‘365; [0065], [0066] and [0099]) . Further, ‘760 discloses an objective (cost) to select optimized operating parameters for control ( i.e., to support the model based on the objective related relationship) (e.g. See ‘760; [0054]). Further, ‘365 also discloses running the model simultaneously with the treatment being executed (real time simulation) (e.g., See ‘365; [0115]). As per claim 7, ‘760 discloses performing treatment using optimized controllables by outputting optimized operational parameters for control signals that operate the fracturing equipment, and ‘760 further discloses that the operation parameter can be pump treatment pressure by monitoring pump output pressure and generating signals to increase/decrease pressure or flow (e.g., See ‘760; [0050 ] and [0054]) . Further, ‘365 discloses that controllable variables include additive concentration, since additive flow rates are regulated to control component concentrations (e.g., See ‘365; [0062]). Further, ‘115 discloses additive “mix targets” by disclosing stage profile parameters including an amount of chemicals (and related slurry mix values) (e.g., See ‘115; [0071]). As per claims 11 and 17 , the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 4 , from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim s 11 and 17 . As per claims 1 2 and 1 9 , the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 5 , from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim s 1 2 and 1 9 . As per claim 1 8 , the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 6 , from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim 18 . As per claims 1 3 and 20 , the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 7 , from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim 1 3 and 20 . References Considered but Not Relied Upon The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections: (1) US 2021/0087925 A1, which discloses using machine learning to update a frac job design in real time to achieve an objective like cost or production; (2) US 2021/0040830 A1, which discloses coordinating a fleet of frac pumps by choosing start or stop orders and distributing flow rates based on real time operating conditions; (3) US 2016/0349728 A1, which discloses tracking proppant inventory and feeding from storage in a data van, helping keep the correct amount of sand going into the blender; (4) US 2021/0095558 A1, which discloses monitoring pressure sensor data during fracturing to detect interference between wells and alerting operators in a timely manner; and (5) US 2023/0092199 A1, which discloses storing stage by stage pump profiles and using a controller to run each stage with planned pressure and rate targets. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3684 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mohammad Ali can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4105 . 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. /RONALD D HARTMAN JR/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 January 31, 2026 /RDH/