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 .
Response to Arguments
The Applicants arguments filed on 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that the claims require intentionally changing a controllable variable across discrete set points, observing the resulting response, and building a model from those responses.
However, independent claims 1, 8 and 14 do not require a calibration stage, a particular number of discrete set points, or a semi-empirical model.
Further, as explained in the rejection below, even if ‘760 is not viewed as adequately disclosing building the claimed first relationship, it would have been obvious to use the adjusted operating settings, monitored operational measurements and optimization objective already used by ‘760’s optimization algorithm to determine how changing an operating setting affects the monitored treatment response while working toward the optimization objective.
Accordingly, Applicants arguments do not appear to overcome the rejection.
With respect to the dependent claims, it is noted that since the Applicant does not present separate arguments concerning their additional limitations, and since the Arguments concerning the independent claims are not persuasive, the arguments presented do not overcome the rejection of the dependent claims as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KABRICH et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0287760 A1 (hereinafter: ‘760).
As per claim 1, ‘760 discloses or renders obvious a method comprising:
systematically altering a first value of a controllable variable used in a wellbore treatment operation (e.g., See ‘760; [0034] and [0054], which disclose that, during fracturing, an optimization program streams data and iteratively adjusts operating settings);
monitoring a value of an operational parameter in response to systematically altering the first value of the controllable variable (e.g., See ‘760; [0038], [0044], [0050] and [0054], which disclose continuously monitoring wellhead pressure and other operating data as operating settings are iteratively adjusted);
building at least a first relationship between the controllable variable, the operational parameter, and an objective function (e.g., See ‘760; [0034], [0037] and [0054], which disclose relating operating settings, streamed operational measurements, and optimization objectives via an optimization algorithm. It is noted that if ‘760 is not viewed as adequately disclosing building the claimed first relationship, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the adjusted operating settings, monitored operational measurements, and optimization objective already used by’760’s optimization algorithm to determine how changing an operating setting affects the monitored treatment response while working toward the optimization objective);
selecting an optimal value of the controllable variable, wherein the optimal value of the controllable variable corresponds to a maximum value or a minimum value of the objective function (e.g., See ‘760; [0037] and [0054], which disclose choosing optimized operating setting values that minimize operating cost using the optimization algorithm, thereby corresponding to a minimum value of the objective function); and
adjusting the wellbore treatment operation based, at least in part, on the optimal value of the controllable variable (e.g., See ‘760; [0047] and [0054], which 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 one or more pumps proximate to a wellbore formed in one or more subsurface formations, a processor communicatively coupled to the pump(s), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions executable by the processor (e.g., See ‘760; [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 one or more non-transitory machine-readable media including instructions executable by a processor (e.g., See ‘760; [0030] and [0031]).
Claims 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), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively, from above, 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 by disclosing altering, during fracturing, proppant or chemical amounts across multiple pumping stages (e.g., See ‘115; [0009], [0038], [0055] and [0071],).
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 does not specifically disclose monitoring, during the wellbore treatment operation, changes in the operational parameter over the plurality of set points.
‘115 discloses the missing plurality of set points feature by disclosing a fracturing plan being performed 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 (e.g., See ‘115; [0009], [0073] and [0074]).
Further, ‘760 discloses continuously monitoring operational measurements, including pressure or flow, in real time (e.g., See ‘760; [0038] and [0044]).
Together, in the opinion of the examiner, the combination of ’760 and ‘115 adequately disclose monitoring, during the wellbore treatment operations, changes in the operational parameter over the plurality of set points.
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 monitoring pressure or flow changes across multiple stage based setpoints, because monitoring the treatment response as the operation progresses from one set point to the next allows deviations from the expected pressure or flow response to be identified, thereby improving and consistency between treatment stages.
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 claims 9 and 15. Further, with respect to claim 9, ‘115 discloses one or more containers that include one or more materials (e.g., See ‘115; [0033], which disclose water tanks and treatment material supply equipment for fracturing materials).
As per claims 10 and 16, the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 3, from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claims 10 and 16.
Claims 7, 13 and 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), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively, from above, in view of Abad U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0224365 A1 (hereinafter: ‘365).
As per claim 7, although ‘760 discloses that the monitored operational measurement (operational parameter) can be pump treatment pressure and that the wellbore treatment operation can be performed using an optimized operating setting (optimal value of the controllable variable)(e.g., See ‘760; [0050] and[0054], which disclose monitoring pump output pressure, adjusting pressure or flow, and using optimized operating settings to control the fracturing equipment), ‘760 does not specifically disclose that the adjusted operating setting (controllable variable) is an additive concentration.
‘365 discloses this missing feature by disclosing additive flow rates being regulated so as to control the concentration of components in the treatment fluid (e.g., See ‘365; [0062]).
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 for the purpose of using additive concentration as an adjusted operating setting while monitoring pump treatment pressure, because controlling additive concentration allows the treatment fluid mixture to be changed in a controlled manner while the resulting treatment pressure is monitored, thereby improving control and consistency.
As per claims 13 and 20, the rejection and rationale formed therein with respect to claim 7, from above, are incorporated herein and are applied to claim 13 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-12 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claims 4, 11 and 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest determining a relationship comprising a rate of change in the controllable variable and a rate of change in the operational parameter across a plurality of set points, integrating that relationship, and determining from the integration a further relationship between the operational parameter and the controllable variable. Specifically, although the prior art discloses changing treatment variables and monitoring resulting operational responses, the prior art does not seem to adequately disclose or sufficiently suggest the claimed rate of change relationship followed by the claimed integration step, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
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
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 RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (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 August 7, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights