DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 & 4-22 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendment filed on February 26, 2026. Claims 2 & 3 stand canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13-17 & 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 is dependent on itself. For purposes of examination, the Office considers Claim 4 as dependent on Claim 1.
Further, Claim 4 recites “when a fracturing pressure caused by the fracturing fluid exceeds a horizontal stress level of the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore”. To improve clarity with respect to the conditional phrase “when”, replacement of this limitation with language such as “after a fracturing pressure caused by the fracturing fluid exceeds a horizontal stress level of the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “when a fracturing pressure caused by the fracturing fluid exceeds a horizontal stress level of the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore”. To improve clarity with respect to the conditional phrase “when”, replacement of this limitation with language such as “after a fracturing pressure caused by the fracturing fluid exceeds a horizontal stress level of the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 14-17 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 13.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “using the wireline tool”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as -with the wireline tool- is suggested. 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 & 4-22 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 “wherein the second plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by the distance, and wherein each location of at least a majority of the second plurality of locations is positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations”. As recited, “at least a majority” encompasses embodiments where a portion of the second plurality of locations is not positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations; in which case it is unclear how all the second plurality of locations are also spaced apart from each other by “the distance”. As a non-limiting example, if the first plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by 10 feet, how can all the second plurality of locations, both positioned and not positioned between two adjacent first locations, also be spaced apart from each other by 10 feet?
Further, the term “majority” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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. The term “majority” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the quantity/number/value required to be considered “majority”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 4-21 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the fourth plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other within the second portion by the distance, and wherein each location of at least a second majority of the fourth plurality of locations is positioned between two adjacent locations of the third plurality of locations”. As recited, “at least a second majority” encompasses embodiments where a portion of the fourth plurality of locations is not positioned between two adjacent locations of the third plurality of locations; in which case it is unclear how all the fourth plurality of locations are also spaced apart from each other by “the distance”. As a non-limiting example, if the third plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by 10 feet, how can all the fourth plurality of locations, both positioned and not positioned between two adjacent third locations, also be spaced apart from each other by 10 feet?
Further, the term “majority” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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. The term “majority” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the quantity/number/value required to be considered “majority”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 15-17 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 14. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 17 recites “similar length”, where “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” 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. The term “similar” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the length required to be considered “similar”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the third plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by the distance, and wherein each location of at least a second majority of the third plurality of locations is positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations and the second plurality of locations”. As recited, “at least a second majority” encompasses embodiments where a portion of the third plurality of locations is not positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations and the second plurality of locations; in which case it is unclear how all the third plurality of locations are also spaced apart from each other by “the distance”. As a non-limiting example, if the first and second plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by 10 feet, respectively, how can all the third plurality of locations, both positioned and not positioned between two adjacent first locations and second locations, also be spaced part from each other by 10 feet? This limitation is further unclear in combination with the lack of clarity regarding the positioning of the second plurality of locations for reasons set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
Further, the term “majority” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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. The term “majority” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the quantity/number/value required to be considered “majority”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “at least a majority”, where the term “majority” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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. The term “majority” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the quantity/number/value required to be considered “majority”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 1, 4-6, 8, 18-20 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2015/0096756).
With respect to Claim 1, Sharma discloses a method for completing a horizontal section of a wellbore, the method comprising: executing, at a first time, a first fracturing stage within a portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore, wherein the first fracturing stage generates fractures at a first location along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore; and executing, at a second time that proceeds the first time, a second fracturing stage within the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore, wherein the second fracturing stage generates fractures at a second location along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore (Sharma: Sections [0017], [0044] & [0084]).
Sharma further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the fracturing creates multiple fractures in a section (Sharma: Section [0062]), which is considered a plurality of fracture clusters as instantly claimed; one or more embodiments wherein a plurality of locations are fractured simultaneously (Sharma: Sections [0058] & [0084]); one or more embodiments of using alternate fracturing to create fracture complexity by fracturing at a location between two fractured locations (Sharma: Section [0084]); and one or more embodiments where multiple locations can be fractured, and flow control devices are used to selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing (Sharma: Section [0084]), where selection of location is considered to encompass selection of spacing; in order to improve production of hydrocarbons (Sharma: Sections [0002] & [0009]).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with “a first plurality of fracture clusters at a first plurality of locations”, “wherein the first plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by a distance”, “a second plurality of fracture clusters at a second plurality of locations”, “wherein the second plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by the distance, and wherein each location of at least a majority of the second plurality of locations is positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations resulting in an alternating arrangement of one of the first plurality of locations and one of the second plurality of locations along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to execute the fracturing stages to generate fracture clusters at one or more desired locations spaced as desired, and in an order or sequence as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for completing horizontal sections of a wellbore and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the use of fracturing stages to generate one or more fractures at one or more locations and selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired number of fractures at a desired number of locations in a desired spacing and sequence/order, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 4, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses generating fractures with a fracturing fluid (Sharma: Sections [0017], [0044] & [0084]), which would appear to encompass fracturing fluid flow therethrough when a fracturing pressure caused by the fracturing fluid exceeds a horizontal stress level of the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Sharma and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 5, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore is cased” (Sharma: Section [0044]; Figures).
With respect to Claim 6, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses employing perforations in the fracturing stage (Sharma: Sections [0017] & [0084]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose “executing” perforations as broadly and instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the perforations, by executing the perforations as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to fracture the formation.
With respect to Claim 8, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments where various fluids are injected, including to inhibit reactions, precipitation etc.; and where the injection is selectively controlled to improve production of hydrocarbons (Sharma: Sections [0002], [0009] & [0062]-[0082]), where such injection is considered a “flushing operation” as broadly and instantly claimed. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with executing the flushing operation “after the first time and prior to the second time” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the injection of fluids as and when desired, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
With respect to Claim 18, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Sharma further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the fracturing creates multiple fractures in a section (Sharma: Section [0062]), which is considered a plurality of fracture clusters as instantly claimed; one or more embodiments wherein a plurality of locations are fractured simultaneously (Sharma: Sections [0058] & [0084]); one or more embodiments of using alternate fracturing to create fracture complexity by fracturing at a location between two fractured locations (Sharma: Section [0084]); and one or more embodiments where multiple locations can be fractured, and flow control devices are used to selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing (Sharma: Section [0084]), where selection of location is considered to encompass selection of spacing; in order to improve production of hydrocarbons (Sharma: Sections [0002] & [0009]).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with “executing, at a third time that proceeds the second time, a third fracturing stage within the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore, wherein the third fracturing stage generates a third plurality of fracture clusters at a third plurality of locations along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore, wherein the third plurality of locations are spaced apart from each other by the distance, and wherein each location of at least a second majority of the third plurality of locations is positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations and the second plurality of locations resulting in an alternating arrangement of one of the first plurality of locations, one of the second plurality of locations, and one of the third plurality of locations along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to execute the fracturing stages to generate fracture clusters at one or more desired locations spaced as desired, and in an order or sequence as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for completing horizontal sections of a wellbore and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the use of fracturing stages to generate one or more fractures at one or more locations and selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired number of fracture stages and fractures at a desired number of locations in a desired spacing and a desired sequence/order, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 19, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the horizontal section of the wellbore is drilled into an unconventional subterranean formation” (Sharma: Sections [0005], [0007] & [0035]); wherein a shale formation is considered an unconventional subterranean formation as presented in [0002] of the instant specification.
With respect to Claim 20, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “wherein the first plurality of fracture clusters and the second plurality of fracture clusters have a same number of fracture clusters” as instantly claimed, the number of fractures/fracture clusters is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for reasons as set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 22, Sharma discloses a method for completing a horizontal section of a wellbore, the method comprising: executing, at a first time, a first fracturing stage within a portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore, wherein the first fracturing stage generates fractures at a first location along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore; and executing, at a second time that proceeds the first time, a second fracturing stage within the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore, wherein the second fracturing stage generates fractures at a second location along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore (Sharma: Sections [0017], [0044] & [0084]).
Sharma further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the fracturing creates multiple fractures in a section (Sharma: Section [0062]), which is considered a plurality of fracture clusters as instantly claimed; one or more embodiments wherein a plurality of locations are fractured simultaneously (Sharma: Sections [0058] & [0084]); one or more embodiments of using alternate fracturing to create fracture complexity by fracturing at a location between two fractured locations (Sharma: Section [0084]); and one or more embodiments where multiple locations can be fractured, and flow control devices are used to selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing (Sharma: Section [0084]), where selection of location is considered to encompass selection of spacing; in order to improve production of hydrocarbons (Sharma: Sections [0002] & [0009]).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with “a first plurality of fracture clusters at a first plurality of locations”, “a second plurality of fracture clusters at a second plurality of locations”, “wherein each location of at least a majority of the second plurality of locations is positioned between two adjacent locations of the first plurality of locations resulting in an alternating arrangement of one of the first plurality of locations and one of the second plurality of locations along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to execute the fracturing stages to generate fracture clusters at one or more desired locations positioned as desired, and in an order or sequence as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for completing horizontal sections of a wellbore and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the use of fracturing stages to generate one or more fractures at one or more locations and selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired number of fractures at a desired number of locations in a desired positioning and sequence/order, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2015/0096756), in view of Roussel et al. (US 2012/0325462).
With respect to Claim 10, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein executing the fracturing stage comprises pumping conventional fluids such as proppant with fracturing fluid into the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore (Sharma: Sections [0041] & [0065]).
The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “sand” with the fracturing fluid as instantly claimed.
Roussel teaches methods of hydraulic fracturing in subterranean formations therein, wherein sand is employed as a proppant in optimizing fracturing (Roussel: Sections [0005]-[0008], [0034] & [0036]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sharma with the aforementioned teachings of Roussel to employ sand with the fracturing fluid as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize fracturing. (Roussel: Sections [0005]-[0008], [0034] & [0036]).
With respect to Claim 11, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 10. Sharma further teaches controlling formation pressure to control production of desired fluids (Sharma: Section [0085]). As such, although the combined references fail to explicitly disclose “reducing, after the first time and prior to the second time, pressure within the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control pressure as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control production as desired.
With respect to Claim 12, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 11. Sharma further teaches employing flow control devices to selectively open and close injection ports to control fracturing (which is considered to provide for pressure isolation and for screen outs as instantly described in [0076] of the specification), and also teaches controlling formation pressure to control production of desired fluids (Sharma: Sections [0084] & [0085]). As such, although the combined references fail to explicitly disclose “executing, after the first fracturing stage is executed and before the second time, screen outs at the first plurality of locations to isolate pressures within the first plurality of fracture clusters at approximately a minimum closure stress level” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to execute screen outs and control pressure as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control fracturing and production as desired.
With respect to Claim 13, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 12. Sharma further discloses generating fractures with a fracturing fluid (Sharma: Sections [0017], [0044] & [0084]), which would appear to encompass fracturing fluid flow therethrough when a fracturing pressure caused by the fracturing fluid exceeds a horizontal stress level of the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore and the minimum closure stress level within the first plurality of fracture clusters as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Sharma and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 14, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 13. Sharma further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the fracturing creates multiple fractures in a section (Sharma: Section [0062]), which is considered a plurality of fracture clusters as instantly claimed; one or more embodiments wherein a plurality of locations are fractured simultaneously (Sharma: Sections [0058] & [0084]); one or more embodiments of using alternate fracturing to create fracture complexity by fracturing at a location between two fractured locations (Sharma: Section [0084]); and one or more embodiments where multiple locations can be fractured, and flow control devices are used to selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing (Sharma: Section [0084]), where selection of location is considered to encompass selection of spacing; in order to improve production of hydrocarbons (Sharma: Sections [0002] & [0009]).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with the features of Claim 14, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to execute a desired number of fracturing stages to generate fracture clusters at one or more desired locations spaced as desired, in an order or sequence as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
Further, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for completing horizontal sections of a wellbore and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the use of fracturing stages to generate one or more fractures at one or more locations and selectively control the locations and sequence or order of fracturing as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired number of fracture stages and fractures at a desired number of locations in a desired spacing and a desired sequence/order, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 15, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 14. Sharma further teaches one or more embodiments with a fracture sequence starting at the toe (Sharma: Section [0084]), which provides for subsequent fracturing uphole. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with “wherein the second portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore is located uphole from the first portion”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fracture uphole in subsequent stages, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
With respect to Claim 16, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 15. Sharma further teaches selectively arranging barriers/packers to create fractures efficiently and in a controlled/customized manner (Sharma: Section [0084]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above methods steps in combination with inserting a barrier “after the second time and before the third time” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert barriers as desired, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve production of hydrocarbons.
With respect to Claim 17, the combined references of Sharma and Roussel teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 14. Although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “wherein the first portion and the second portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore have a similar length” as instantly claimed, selecting fracturing locations as set forth above is considered to encompass selecting portions/lengths of the horizontal section, which is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for reasons as set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2015/0096756), in view of Potts et al. (US 2018/0112489).
With respect to Claim 7, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 6. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “…wherein the perforations are executed with a wireline tool that is inserted into the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore” as instantly claimed.
Potts teaches methods of multistage fracturing in subterranean formations therein, wherein perforations are created using perforating guns as known in the art, where the perforating guns are conveyed using a wireline (Potts: Sections [0006]-[0008], [0070] & [0071]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sharma with the aforementioned teachings of Potts to execute perforations with a wireline tool as known in the art, as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in fracturing applications. (Potts: Sections [0006]-[0008], [0070] & [0071]).
With respect to Claim 9, Sharma teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “…executing, after the first time and prior to the second time, perforations at the second plurality of locations along the portion of the horizontal section of the wellbore” as instantly claimed.
Potts teaches methods of multistage fracturing in subterranean formations therein, wherein new perforations are created in order to contact untapped areas of the hydrocarbon producing formation (Potts: Sections [0006]-[0008], [0050] & [0070]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sharma with the aforementioned teachings of Potts to execute perforations as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to contact untapped areas of the hydrocarbon producing formation and improve hydrocarbon production. (Potts: Sections [0006]-[0008], [0050] & [0070]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2015/0096756), in view of Potts et al. (US 2018/0112489), further in view of Stromquist et al. (CA 3,169,472).
With respect to Claim 21, the combined references of Sharma and Potts teach the method as provided above with respect to Claim 7. The combined references, however, fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the first fracturing stage is executed using the wireline tool” as instantly claimed.
Stromquist teaches methods and tools for well completions therein, wherein the tools are deployed on wireline and employed for creating perforations and fracturing multiple intervals in order to selectively apply multiple treatments in a single trip downhole thereby providing efficiency, lower cost and safety in completion operations (Stromquist: Pages 1-7a, 9 & 13). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined references of Sharma and Potts with the aforementioned teachings of Stromquist to execute the first fracturing stage using the wirelines tool as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively apply multiple treatments in a single trip downhole thereby providing efficiency, lower cost and/or safety in completion operations. (Stromquist: Pages 1-7a, 9 & 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicants' amendments regarding the claim objections are persuasive and, therefore, these objections have been withdrawn. Some amendments, however, raise new objections as set forth above.
Applicants' amendments regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejections are persuasive in-part. As such, these rejections are withdrawn in-part and maintained in-part as set forth above. Further, some amendments raise new issues under 35 USC § 112 as set forth above.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to new Claims 21 & 22 and with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 under 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al., alone or in combination with Roussel et al. and/or Potts et al., have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants assert that (1) the "alternate fracturing" technique discussed in Sharma is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art; and Sharma is completely silent with respect to fracturing multiple times in the same portion of a horizontal section of a wellbore; and (2) Sharma is completely silent with respect to creating two sets of fractures at two different sets of locations in a portion of a horizontal section of the wellbore resulting in an alternating arrangement as respectively claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The instant claims recite “a portion of the horizontal section”. As broadly claimed, the claims do not necessarily limit the boundary/area/size/length of portion of the horizontal section and encompass any portion, including all or any part(s), of the horizontal section. Further, the generating a desired number of fracture stages and fractures at a desired number of locations in a desired spacing and a desired sequence/order is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for reasons as set forth above under the prior art rejections.
As such, Claims 1 & 4-20 remain rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Sharma et al., alone or in combination with Roussel et al. and/or Potts et al., as set forth above, with updates to address amendments.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights