DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 2, step 210 contains a typographical error. Specifically, “of hte measured” should read “of the measured”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 2-12 by dependency): This claim recites “a second pressure around the core sample” and, later, “the second confining pressure”. The latter lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets “a second pressure around the core sample” as “a second confining pressure around the core sample”. Further, “the first inlet pressure” lacks antecedent basis. This term is contained within the phrase “wherein the second confining pressure is at least 2500 psi and the second pore pressure is at least 1000 psi more than the first inlet pressure”. This renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it appears that one or both of the underlined terms should be different. It seems “the first inlet pressure” should read “the first pore pressure”. Still further, viewing FIGS. 3A-3B there is a massive disparity in the pore pressure from the upstream side to the downstream side, in both “low” and “high” pressure tests. In the “low” pressure test, the pore pressure varies from 2015 psi upstream to 15 psi downstream. In the “high” pressure test, the pore pressure varies from up to 4500 psi upstream to 2500 psi downstream. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “first pore pressure” (in the “low” test) and “second pore pressure” (in the “high” test). Is it the pore pressure at the upstream side (the highest value)? Is it the pore pressure at the downstream side (the lowest value)? Is it an average of the upstream and downstream pore pressures? Most importantly, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of a “low pore pressure test” are, and it is unclear what the metes and bounds of a “high pore pressure test” are. To overcome the instant 112b rejection, as it relates to the previous sentence, applicant should amend claim 1 to clarify the metes and bounds of a low pore pressure test and a high pore pressure test. This must be done after firstly correcting all previous 112b issues (i.e., antecedent basis issues, the “at least 1000 psi more” recitation, and precisely defining/reciting what is meant by the first and second pore pressures). It appears that applicant may set forth the metes and bounds of “low” vs. “high” pore pressure tests by, in claim 1, reciting approximate upper and lower bounds, respectively, for pore pressure (if appropriate), confining pressure, inlet pressure, and/or any other parameters that would clearly define the metes and bounds of “low” and “high” in regards to the tests. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification and fluid dynamics, the examiner interprets “low” and “high” in view of FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B, the associated discussion thereof, Knudsen diffusion mechanics, and slip flow / Klinkenberg effect.
Regarding claim 13 (and claims 14-20 by dependency): This claim is unclear for the same reasons as claim 1 above as it relates to the metes and bounds of “low” and “high” pressure tests.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears that claims 1-20 would be allowable if claims 1 and 13 were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. It is re-iterated here that the examiner’s interpretation of claims 1 and 13 regarding “low” and “high” pressure tests are based in light of the specification and fluid dynamics, specifically in view of FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B, the associated discussion thereof, Knudsen diffusion mechanics, slip flow / Klinkenberg effect, etc. The general difference between what one might interpret as “low” and “high” pressure tests is made clearer by the art cited and discussed below; however, the exact metes and bounds of “low” and “high” in the instant claims remains unclear and must be remedied. As such, the allowability of the instant claims hinges upon applicant amending claims 1 and 13 to clearly and exactly recite what qualifies as a “low pore pressure test” and what qualifies as a “high pore pressure test”.
It is firstly noted that essentially all the most relevant prior art is by the same assignee and shares inventors with the instant application, though this has no effect on patentability or eligibility of references.
The closest prior art is cited in the conclusion section below. One particularly relevant piece of art is Zhang et al. (US 11,680,887 B1), with PGPUB US 20230168173 A1 published June 1st 2023. This art shares the same assignee and has three inventors, two of which are the only inventors listed on the instant application. As such, it is technically prior art, although any rejection using it would almost certainly be overcome by applicant meeting the requirements of exception 102(b)(1)(A). Regardless, this art fails to teach at least the “low” pressure test combined with three sequential “high” pressure tests. The reason the examiner emphasizes the patent of Zhang is that some of the patented claims are strikingly similar to the instant claims with the critical caveat that the instant claims are more detailed and recite a “low” pressure test combined with three sequential “high” pressure tests, among other limitations not found in the claims of the Zhang patent nor the disclosure of the Zhang PGPUB.
The prior art cited in the conclusion section below teaches high pressure testing for determining permeability and pore characteristics that involves stress-dependent permeability (e.g., high pore pressure tests involving α, ko, β). The most relevant to this is Zhang et al. ("An Efficient Laboratory Method to Measure Stress-Dependent Tight Rock Permeability With the Steady-State Flow Method"). Liu et al. (“Correction of source-rock permeability measurements owing to slip flow and Knudsen diffusion: a method and its evaluation”) is quite illuminating regarding how viscous flow, slip flow, and Knudsen diffusion relate to permeability. Liu explicitly states in the introduction that “in this paper, we only discuss cases in which pore pressure may change, but effective stress imposed on a core sample remains unchanged. Thus, mechanical deformation processes do not come into play in the discussion in this paper” (emphasis added). As it relates to claim 1, the α of Liu is a dimensionless rarefaction coefficient related to Knudsen number, which is fundamentally different from the claimed stress-dependent parameters. As it relates to claim 13, Liu fails to teach various structural components as well as the low pressure test followed by three sequential high pressure tests. The separate testing regimes, testing protocol, and determining step, as claimed, of the instant invention / claim 13 are a fundamentally different approach than that of Liu. The remaining prior art, cited below, suffers from at least the same deficiencies as set forth above. Lastly, the examiner finds it non-obvious to make any combination of the cited references to yield the claimed invention. Specifically, any theoretical combination would involve combining two fundamentally different methodologies with starkly different fluid dynamics in the specific manner recited in the instant claims. As such, the examiner finds claims 1 and 13, as interpreted in light of the 112b rejection above, novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang, Jilin Jay, Hui-Hai Liu, and Jewel Duncan. "An Efficient Laboratory Method to Measure Stress-Dependent Tight Rock Permeability With the Steady-State Flow Method." Petrophysics 63.05 (2022): 604-613.;
Liu, Hui-Hai, Dan Georgi, and Jinhong Chen. "Correction of source-rock permeability measurements owing to slip flow and Knudsen diffusion: a method and its evaluation." Petroleum Science 15.1 (2018): 116-125.;
Liu, Hui-Hai, and Jilin Zhang. "An efficient laboratory method to measure the combined effects of Knudsen diffusion and mechanical deformation on shale permeability." Journal of contaminant hydrology 232 (2020): 103652.;
Liu; Hui-Hai et al., (US 20220214262 A1), "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING STRESS DEPENDENCY OF SHALE PERMEABILITY WITH STEADY-STATE FLOW";
Kibodeaux; Kenneth Richard et al., (US 20210165127 A1), "ACCOMMODATING NON-DARCIAN EFFECTS OF SLIP FLOW AND KNUDSEN DIFFUSION ON GAS FLOW FOR USE IN RESERVOIR SIMULATIONS";
Liu; Hui-Hai et al., (US 10571384 B2), "Methods and systems for determining gas permeability of a subsurface formation"; and
Chen; Huangye et al., (US 20190234859 A1), "Methods and Systems for Determining Gas Permeability of a Subsurface Formation".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855