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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/22/25 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 29-36 are pending in the application. Claims 6 and 21-28 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection and some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/24/25.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5, 7-20, 29, and 36 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a lateral section of at least 1,000 feet in length.” The phrase “at least 1,000 feet” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 1,001 feet or 100 million feet. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 1,000 feet” will be considered as if written as “between 1,000 feet and 50,000 feet” (see [0098] in Specification for support).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a stage length of at least 200 feet.” The phrase “at least 200 feet” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 201 feet or 200 million feet. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 200 feet” will be considered as if written as “between 200 feet and 1,000 feet” (see [0099] in Specification for support).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cluster count of at least 6 perforation clusters per stage.” The phrase “at least 6 perforation clusters” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 7 clusters or 7 million clusters. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 6 perforation clusters” will be considered as if written as “between 6 and 1,000 perforation clusters” (see [0099] in Specification for support).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pressure drop of at least 500 psi across perforations.” The phrase “at least 500 psi” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 500 psi or 500 million psi. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 500 psi” will be considered as if written as “between 500 psi and 2000 psi” (see [0107] in Specification for support).
Claims 2-5, 7-20, 29, and 36, dependent upon claim 1, are hereby rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the stage length is at least 400 feet...” The phrase “at least 400 feet” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 401 feet or 400 million feet. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 400 feet” will be considered as if written as “between 400 feet and 1,000 feet” (see [0099] in Specification for support).
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “a pressure drop of at least 2000 psi across perforations.” The phrase “at least 2000 psi” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 2000 psi or 200 million psi. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 2000 psi” will be considered as if written as “2000 psi” (see [0107] in Specification for support).
Claims 30-35 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.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “a pressure drop of at least 500 psi across perforations.” The phrase “at least 500 psi” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “at least” can include 500 psi or 500 million psi. For purposes of examination, the term “at least 500 psi” will be considered as if written as “between 500 psi and 2000 psi” (see [0107] in Specification for support).
Claims 31-35, dependent upon claim 29, are hereby rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 2021/0246364- cited previously) in view of Ciezobka et al. (US 2017/0226838).
With respect to independent claim 1, Gordon discloses a method, comprising hydraulically fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising a lateral section of between 20 feet and 40,000 feet, a stage length of between 10 feet and 2,000 feet, and/or a cluster count of between 2 and 677 perforation clusters per stage ([0057] and [0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet, clusters of perforations 1-3 feet long spaced apart by 2-30 feet, and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum lateral length of 20 feet [2 stages of 10 feet each] and a “maximum” lateral length of 40,000 feet [20 stages of 2,000 feet each], as well as a minimum perforation clusters per stage of 2 [3 foot perforations separated by 4 feet in a 10 foot stage] and a maximum perforation clusters per stage of 667 [1 foot perforations separated by 2 feet in a 2,000 foot stage]) by introducing a fracturing fluid comprising a carrier fluid and coke proppant particles into the subterranean formation via the wellbore (Abstract, [0010], and [0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon discloses a wellbore comprising a lateral section of between 20 feet and 40,000 feet ([0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum lateral length of 20 feet [2 stages of 10 feet each] and a “maximum” lateral length of 40,000 feet [20 stages of 2,000 feet each]). Although silent to wherein the lateral length is “between 1,000 feet and 50,000 feet,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a lateral length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Further regarding claim 1, Gordon discloses a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet ([0063]-[0067]). Although silent to wherein the stage length is “between 200 feet and 1,000 feet,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a stage length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Further regarding claim 1, Gordon discloses a cluster count of between 2 and 667 perforation clusters ([0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet, clusters of perforations 1-3 feet long spaced apart by 2-30 feet, and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum perforation clusters per stage of 2 [3 foot perforations separated by 4 feet in a 10 foot stage] and a maximum perforation clusters per stage of 667 [1 foot perforations separated by 2 feet in a 2,000 foot stage]) Although silent to wherein the number of perforation clusters is “between 6 and 1,000,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a number of perforation clusters as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Further regarding claim 1, Gordon discloses a method for hydraulicly fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising a cluster count of between 2 and 667 perforation clusters ([0063]-[0067]; see above). However, Gordon fails to expressly disclose the pressure drop across said perforations. Ciezobka teaches a method for hydraulicly fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising perforations, wherein the pressure drop across said perforations ranges in the 100’s of psi (Abstract, [0064], [0070]-[0078], and Fig. 8). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider controlling the pressure drop across the perforations disclosed by Gordon, as taught by Ciezobka, since it improves the effectiveness of hydrocarbon recovery (Abstract and [0005]). Although silent to wherein the pressure drop is “between 500 psi and 2000 psi,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a pressure drop as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claims 2-4, Gordon discloses wherein the coke proppant particles are present in the fracturing fluid in an amount of about 1 vol % to 100 vol % ([0060]). Although silent to wherein the coke proppant particles are present in an amount “from 14 kilograms per cubic meter to 480 kilograms per cubic meter,” “from 18 kilograms per cubic meter to 120 kilograms per cubic meter,” and “from 23 kilograms per cubic meter to 96 kilograms per cubic meter,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for an amount of coke proppant particles as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 5, Gordon discloses producing hydrocarbon fluids from the subterranean formation via the wellbore subsequent to the hydraulic fracturing of the subterranean formation (Abstract and [0036]).
With respect to depending claim 7, Gordon discloses a wellbore comprising a lateral section of between 20 feet and 40,000 feet ([0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum lateral length of 20 feet [2 stages of 10 feet each] and a “maximum” lateral length of 40,000 feet [20 stages of 2,000 feet each]). Although silent to wherein the lateral length is “from 1,000 feet to 50,000 feet,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a lateral length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 8, Gordon discloses a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet ([0063]-[0067]). Although silent to wherein the stage length is “between 400 feet and 1,000 feet,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a stage length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Further regarding claim 8, Gordon discloses a cluster count of between 2 and 667 perforation clusters ([0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet, clusters of perforations 1-3 feet long spaced apart by 2-30 feet, and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum perforation clusters per stage of 2 [3 foot perforations separated by 4 feet in a 10 foot stage] and a maximum perforation clusters per stage of 667 [1 foot perforations separated by 2 feet in a 2,000 foot stage]) Although silent to wherein the number of perforation clusters is “from 10 to 1,000,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a number of perforation clusters as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 9, Gordon discloses comprising, during the introduction of the fracturing fluid comprising the carrier fluid and the coke proppant particles into the subterranean formation via the wellbore, utilizing at least one diversion material to direct a flow of the fracturing fluid within the wellbore ([0064]).
With respect to depending claim 10, which is dependent upon claim 9, Gord discloses wherein the at least one diversion material may be a plug ([0064]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the diversion material.
With respect to depending claims 11 and 36, Gordon discloses wherein the coke proppant particle comprise fluid coke (Abstract). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the coke proppant particles.
With respect to depending claim 12, Gordon discloses wherein the coke proppant particles comprise microproppant coke particles ([0048]).
With respect to depending claim 13, Gordon discloses introducing the fracturing fluid comprising the carrier fluid and the coke proppant particles into the subterranean formation via the wellbore for each of at least a portion of a plurality of stages of the wellbore (Abstract, [0010], [0057]-[0059], and [0063]-[0067]).
With respect to depending claim 14, which is dependent upon claim 13, Gordon discloses for each of the at least the portion of the plurality of stages, introducing the fracturing fluid comprising the carrier fluid and the coke proppant particles into the subterranean formation during at least a portion of a pad phase of a hydraulic fracturing operation, prior to an introduction of a second fracturing fluid comprising the carrier fluid and second proppant particles that do not comprise coke into the subterranean formation (Abstract, [0010], [0057]-[0059], and [0063]-[0067]). With respect to depending claim 15, which is dependent upon claim 14, Gordon discloses wherein the second proppant particles may be sand ([0057]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the second proppant particles.
With respect to depending claim 16, which is dependent upon claim 13, Gordon discloses wherein the fracturing fluid further comprises second proppant particles that do not comprise coke, and wherein the method comprises, for each of the at least the portion of the plurality of stages, introducing the fracturing fluid comprising the carrier fluid, the coke proppant particles, and the second proppant particles into the subterranean formation during at least a portion of a pad phase of a hydraulic fracturing operation, as well as during at least a portion of a remainder of the hydraulic fracturing operation (Abstract, [0010], [0057]-[0059], and [0063]-[0067]). With respect to depending claim 17, which is dependent upon claim 16, Gordon discloses wherein the second proppant particles may be sand ([0057]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such materials as the second proppant particles.
With respect to depending claim 18, Gordon discloses wherein the carrier fluid comprises water ([0053]). With respect to depending claim 19, Gordon discloses wherein the carrier fluid is non-aqueous ([0053]).
With respect to depending claim 20, Gordon discloses wherein the fracturing fluid further comprises an acid, a biocide, a breaker, a corrosion inhibitor, a crosslinker, a friction reducer, a gel, an oxygen scavenger, a pH control additive, a scale inhibitor, a surfactant, a weighting agent, an inert solid, a fluid loss control agent, an emulsifier, an emulsion thinner, an emulsion thickener, a viscosifying agent, a foaming agent, a chelating agent, a mutual solvent, an oxidizer, a reducer, and a clay stabilizing agent ([0055]-[0056]). With regard to the remaining materials of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such additives in the fracturing fluid.
With respect to depending claim 29, Gordon discloses a method for hydraulicly fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising a cluster count of between 2 and 667 perforation clusters ([0063]-[0067]; see above). However, Gordon fails to expressly disclose the pressure drop across said perforations. Ciezobka teaches a method for hydraulicly fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising perforations, wherein the pressure drop across said perforations ranges in the 100’s of psi (Abstract, [0064], [0070]-[0078], and Fig. 8). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider controlling the pressure drop across the perforations disclosed by Gordon, as taught by Ciezobka, since it improves the effectiveness of hydrocarbon recovery (Abstract and [0005]). Although silent to wherein the pressure drop is “2000 psi,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a pressure drop as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 30, Gordon discloses a method, comprising hydraulically fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising a lateral section of between 20 feet and 40,000 feet ([0057] and [0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum lateral length of 20 feet [2 stages of 10 feet each] and a “maximum” lateral length of 40,000 feet [20 stages of 2,000 feet each]) by introducing a fracturing fluid comprising a carrier fluid and coke proppant particles into the subterranean formation via the wellbore (Abstract, [0010], and [0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 30, Gordon discloses a wellbore comprising a lateral section of between 20 feet and 40,000 feet ([0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum lateral length of 20 feet [2 stages of 10 feet each] and a “maximum” lateral length of 40,000 feet [20 stages of 2,000 feet each]). Although silent to wherein the lateral length is “between 1,000 feet and 50,000 feet,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a lateral length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Further regarding claim 30, Gordon discloses a method for hydraulicly fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising a cluster count of between 2 and 667 perforation clusters ([0063]-[0067]; see above). However, Gordon fails to expressly disclose the pressure drop across said perforations. Ciezobka teaches a method for hydraulicly fracturing a subterranean formation via a wellbore comprising perforations, wherein the pressure drop across said perforations ranges in the 100’s of psi (Abstract, [0064], [0070]-[0078], and Fig. 8). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider controlling the pressure drop across the perforations disclosed by Gordon, as taught by Ciezobka, since it improves the effectiveness of hydrocarbon recovery (Abstract and [0005]). Although silent to wherein the pressure drop is “between 500 psi and 2000 psi,” as instantly claimed (see 112(b) rejection above), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a pressure drop as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claims 31-33, Gordon discloses wherein the coke proppant particles are present in the fracturing fluid in an amount of about 1 vol % to 100 vol % ([0060]). Although silent to wherein the coke proppant particles are present in an amount “from 14 kilograms per cubic meter to 480 kilograms per cubic meter,” “from 18 kilograms per cubic meter to 120 kilograms per cubic meter,” and “from 23 kilograms per cubic meter to 96 kilograms per cubic meter,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for an amount of coke proppant particles as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claim 34, Gordon discloses producing hydrocarbon fluids from the subterranean formation via the wellbore subsequent to the hydraulic fracturing of the subterranean formation (Abstract and [0036]).
With respect to depending claim 35, Gordon discloses a wellbore comprising a lateral section of between 20 feet and 40,000 feet ([0063]-[0067]; a stage length of 10 to 2,000 feet and 2 to 20 stages, as disclosed by Gordon, yields a minimum lateral length of 20 feet [2 stages of 10 feet each] and a “maximum” lateral length of 40,000 feet [20 stages of 2,000 feet each]). Although silent to wherein the lateral length is “between 1,000 feet and 50,000 feet,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a lateral length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the unbounded limitations of “at least 1,000 feet,” “at least 200 feet,” and “at least 6 perforation clusters per stage” are not indefinite because the Examiner cited lengths of 100 million feet and 200 million feet, and 7 million clusters, as possibilities, and these amounts “cannot exist in fact” since “100 million feet is approximately equal [to] 19,000 miles, while the equatorial diameter of the earth is 7,926 miles.” The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The Examiner rejected these amounts as indefinite because, for example, a limitation of “a lateral section of at least 1,000 feet in length” covers both 1,001 feet or 100 million feet, and as such, the metes and bounds has not been established. Firstly, the Applicant should note that the Examiner was making a point through hyperbole. Secondly, assuming a wellbore of 1 foot diameter and the volume of the Earth as 260 billion cubic miles, a single wellbore filling the entire volume of the earth would have a total length of 82,760,570,407 miles, an amount which includes a wellbore of 18,939 miles (100 million feet). Thirdly, as the Applicant argues and puts on record, according to the Applicant a wellbore of such a length is “in fact impossible to achieve”, and therefore it is certainly unclear as to how a wellbore which the Applicant states is impossible can be claimed as possible, i.e. “at least 1000 feet.”
Applicant argues, based on the amendments, that Gordon fails to disclose the pressure drop as instantly claimed. This argument is moot in view of the new prior art rejection above.
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 AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674