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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 should likely be amended to recite --capture [[a]]the water hammer period--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the number of water hammer periods” in the last two lines. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the number of water hammer periods” in lines 9-10. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the number of water hammer periods” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Consequently, claims 2-4, 6-9 and 11-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite since they depend from claims that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 2019/0129047 A1) (“Clark”).
Referring to claim 1: Clark teaches a method for completing a hydrocarbon well in a shallow reservoir where the method comprises:
installing a wellbore 4 in a shallow hydrocarbon reservoir 3;
calculating a water hammer period for a perforation depth (¶ [0020] and Fig. 9);
calculating a sampling frequency to capture a water hammer period [0019-0020];
sealing the wellbore (using sealing ball 36);
fracturing the wellbore by increasing pump pressure [0005], [0116];
shutting off the pump pressure [0105], [0120]; and
performing a water hammer sensitivity analysis [0010], [0112] comprising:
identification of a shut-in period [0103];
identification of water hammer peaks and troughs ([0130], Fig. 9);
calculation of one or more water hammer periods and the number of water hammer periods ([0020], Fig. 9); and
calculation of a water hammer decay rate ([0103-0104], Fig. 2).
Referring to claim 3: Clark teaches said water hammer sensitivity analysis measures perforation friction, treatment stage isolation, boundary conditions [0057-0058], [0176], casing failure depth [0041], or a combination thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, alone.
Referring to claim 2: While Clark teaches step downs [0097] and that the injection rate can be stepped down by 25 bbl/min or greater (Fig. 2), Clark does not specifically teach a final pressure step-down is 25 bbl/min or greater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the final pressure step-down taught by Clark to be 25 bbl/min or greater with a reasonable expectation of success since Clark inherently teaches a final step-down, since Clark teaches multiple steps, and that a step of 25 bbl/min or greater is possible, so one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify the final step-down to be 25 bbl/min or greater since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Referring to claim 4: Clark teaches information may be stored in a database [0070], makes a reference to “Analysis of Water Hammer Signatures for Fracture Diagnostics” [0179], and that “The characteristics and placement of the perforations and fracture network can have a significant influence on productivity of a well” [0005]. However, Clark does not specifically teach said water hammer sensitivity analysis is compared to a database of water hammer signatures to estimate well parameters selected from near-wellbore fracture surface area, fracture quality, well productivity, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Clark to include comparing water hammer sensitivity analysis to a database of water hammer signatures to estimate well parameters selected from near-wellbore fracture surface area, fracture quality, well productivity, or a combination thereof with a reasonable expectation of success since the thrust of Clark’s invention is directed towards collecting downhole data to make further deductions about downhole conditions, and such a modification would help one gather more useful information.
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Clark and in view of Roussel (US 10,753,181 B2).
Referring to claims 5-14: Clark teaches a method for fracturing a hydrocarbon well in and improving hydrocarbon production from a shallow reservoir where the method comprises:
sealing a hydrocarbon wellbore (using sealing ball 36);
fracturing the wellbore by increasing pump pressure [0005] and [0116];
shutting off the pump pressure [0105] and [0120];
performing a water hammer sensitivity analysis [0010], [0112] comprising:
identification of a shut-in period [0103];
identification of water hammer peaks and troughs [0130] and Fig. 9;
calculation of one or more water hammer periods and the number of water hammer periods [0020] and Fig. 9; and
calculation of a water hammer decay rate [0103]-[0104] and Fig. 2.
Clark does not specifically teach calculating an instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP). Roussel teaches a method for fracturing a hydrocarbon well in and improving hydrocarbon production from a shallow reservoir, where the process comprises:
fracturing the wellbore (Abstract);
shutting off the pump pressure (FIG. 1);
identification of the shut-in period (FIG. 1);
calculation of water hammer decay rate (column 8, lines 47-55); and
calculating an instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP);
identifying one or more fracturing patterns from an ISIP signature, wherein said fracturing pattern identifies a successful fracture, an unseated ball, or a leak in the wellbore (column 8, line 61 - column 9, line 2), wherein said ISIP signature is calculated via a Linear Method (column 4, lines 62-66), Quadratic Method, or Signal processing, wherein said ISIP signature is used to characterize the in-situ stress regime, assess net fracturing pressure, fracturing dimensions (column 8, lines 61-66), or a combination thereof, and wherein said ISIP signature is used to improve fracture parameters for subsequent fractures (column 7, lines 43-47); and
improving well productivity from said shallow reservoir (column 3, lines 46-51; column 18, lines 49-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Clark to include calculating the ISIP and identifying one or more fracturing patterns as taught by Roussel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to collect more useful data about the current fractures and for future fractures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed February 18, 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims and the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The majority of objections to the claims and the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, as noted above, one claim objection and several 35 USC 112 rejections were not addressed and are therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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., removing the oscillatory component or using it to recover a pressure fall-off curve or compute ISIP, and temporal pressure-response characterization and automated shut-in diagnostics) 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).
Therefore, the claims stand finally rejected as further explained above.
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 CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
03 April 2026