DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a 371 national stage entry of PCT/US2022/081627.
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
Applicant’s amendments, filed December 1, 2025, have been fully considered.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
The objection to the Abstract, mailed September 17, 2025, have been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafitte et al. (US 2010/0307745) in view of Reddy et al. (US 6,527,051).
Claim 1. Lafitte discloses A method of assessing an acid stimulation of a hydrocarbon well ([0008] – [0013]; [0035] – [0037]; [0039]; [0041]; [0130]; Claim 1), the method comprising:
pumping a first fracturing slurry comprising first encapsulated tracer particles (Fig. 1; [0014]; [0121]; [0123]; [0128]; Claim 1) into a first annular pack of a first fracturing stage in the hydrocarbon well (Fig. 1 -- fracturing fluid comprising particles pumped into wellbore and trapped within proppant pack of the fracture, 20, which are annular shaped around the borehole, as shown; [0022]; [0126]; [0130]), wherein the first encapsulated tracer particles comprise a first tracer ([0008]; [0017]; [0068] – [0084]) …;
pumping a second fracturing slurry comprising second encapsulated tracer particles (Fig. 1; [0121]; [0123]; [0128]) into a second annular pack of a second fracturing stage in the hydrocarbon well (Fig. 3 -- fracturing fluid comprising particles pumped into wellbore and trapped within a proppant pack, 40 42 or 44; [0022]; [0126]; [0130]), wherein the second encapsulated tracer particles comprise a second tracer ([0014]; [0121]; [0123]; [0128]) …;
at a subsequent time after pumping the first fracturing slurry and the second fracturing slurry, pumping an acid solution into the hydrocarbon well (Fig. 1; [0015]; [0036] – [0037]; [0057]; [0121]; [0123]; [0128]); and
measuring an amount of the first tracer and the second tracer in a produced fluid from the hydrocarbon well ([0008]; [0121]; [0130]; Claim 1).
Lafitte does not disclose: wherein the first encapsulated tracer particles comprise a first tracer coated with calcium carbonate; and wherein the second encapsulated tracer particles comprise a second tracer coated with calcium carbonate. However, Reddy teaches pumping a first and second slurry of encapsulated particles into a hydrocarbon well (Col. 3, lines 45-63; Col. 7, line 25 – Col. 8, line 8), and an acid solution (Col. 7, line 52 – Col. 8, line 22), wherein the particles are coated with calcium carbonate (Col. 5, lines 26-46; Col. 7, lines 10-25; Col. 18, lines 53-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the encapsulated particles in Lafitte with particles coated with calcium carbonate, as taught by Reddy, in order to provide controlled time release of the particles for improved cement set and strength accelerating properties (Reddy: Col. 3, lines 28-43).
Claim 2. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the acid solution dissolves the calcium carbonate coating the first encapsulated tracer particles and the calcium carbonate coating the second encapsulated tracer particles, Lafitte discloses that the acid solution dissolves the encapsulated tracer particles ([0040]; [0046]); and Reddy teaches pumping a first and second slurry of encapsulated particles in a hydrocarbon well (Col. 3, lines 45-63; Col. 7, line 25 – Col. 8, line 8), an acid solution (Col. 7, line 52 – Col. 8, line 22), wherein the particles are coated with calcium carbonate (Col. 5, lines 26-46; Col. 7, lines 10-25; Col. 18, lines 53-61).
Claim 3. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 1. Lafitte further discloses wherein the first annular pack accesses a first zone of the hydrocarbon well and the second annular pack accesses a second zone of the hydrocarbon well (Fig. 3; [0022]; [0126]; [0130]).
Claim 4. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the first encapsulated tracer particles and the second encapsulated tracer particles have an average diameter greater than zero and less than 3 mm, Reddy teaches that the encapsulated particulates have a particle size in the range of 300 to 900 microns in diameter (Col. 7, lines 1-9).
Claim 5. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 4. Regarding the limitation: wherein the first fracturing slurry and the second fracturing slurry further comprise proppant particles having an average diameter greater than zero and less than 3 mm, Reddy teaches that the encapsulated particulates have a particle size in the range of 300 to 900 microns in diameter (Col. 7, lines 1-9).
Claim 6. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the first encapsulated tracer particles and the second encapsulated tracer particles have an average diameter greater than zero and less than 1 mm, Reddy teaches that the encapsulated particulates can have a particle size of 300 microns in diameter (Col. 7, lines 1-9).
Claim 7. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 6. Regarding the limitation: wherein the first fracturing slurry and the second fracturing slurry further comprise proppant particles having an average diameter greater than zero and less than 1 mm, Reddy teaches that the encapsulated particulates can have a particle size of 300 microns in diameter (Col. 7, lines 1-9).
Claim 8. Lafitte in view of Reddy teach The method of claim 1. Lafitte does not expressly disclose: wherein: a concentration of the first encapsulated tracer particles as a percentage by weight of total solids in the first slurry is greater than 0% and less than 10%; and a concentration of the second encapsulated tracer particles as a percentage by weight of total solids in the second slurry is greater than 0% and less than 10%. However, Lafitte does disclose a concentration of first encapsulated tracer particles and a concentration of second encapsulated tracer particles ([0024] – [0025]; [0027] – [0029]) and varying the amount of particles in the first and second slurry in order to pack annular packs or fractures with desired amounts of particles for observations about the size of formations ([0008]; [0018]; [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration range(s) of the first and/or second tracer particles in Lafitte to the range(s) as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons explained, below.
Applicant argues that the term “annular pack” should be narrowly interpreted to mean a “gravel pack” as illustrated in the original disclosure (See Applicant’s Specification, filed 05/30/2024: Fig. 3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the Examiner interprets the term “annular pack” to include particles that may be annularly situated / “packed” around an openhole section of a well with no casing or liner necessarily to support the producing formation.
The Examiner further notes that the rejected claims do not recite the terms: gravel pack, sand control, and/or a sand control screen placed in an annular space of a wellbore to prevent the passage of formation sand.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., gravel pack) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674