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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant further elected Species A, porous nanoparticles (see Requirement for Restriction/Election dated 05/29/2026). Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 13-16 read on the elected invention/species and will be examined.
Claims 4-12 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/27/2026.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tutuncu et al (U.S Pub 2018/0363441) (“Tutuncu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tutuncu discloses a method comprising:
creating cavitation nuclei (Fig 2B and 4; Page 3, paragraphs [0024] and [0032] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses a mixture of piezoelectric crystals and proppant that constitute the nuclei claimed. The piezoelectric crystals are activated through changes in pressure, temperature and/or fluid flow within a wellbore and will expand/contract as a result. At specific frequencies, the expansion/contraction of the piezoelectric crystals causes cavitation within the fluid in the wellbore or in the proppant pack. The cavitation and acoustic stream caused by the piezoelectric crystal vibration and flow creates drag forces);
introducing cavitation nuclei to a drilling fluid (paragraphs [0023], [0121], [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses wherein the methods include utilizing fluids that are pumped into a wellbore that comprise hydraulic fracturing fluids as well as drilling fluids);
delivering the drilling fluid downhole (Page 4, paragraphs [0023], [0033] and [0038] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses wherein a fluid comprising a mixture of proppants and a plurality of piezoelectric crystals are pumped into a wellbore downhole. The fluid with the proppants and piezoelectric crystals may be subsequently pumped together into the wellbore or the piezoelectric crystals may be mixed with the proppant before the proppant is pumped into the wellbore, paragraph [0030]); and
activating an acoustic source downhole thereby inducing cavitation downhole (Page 3, paragraphs [0024] and [0032]; Page 5, paragraph [0045]; Page 7, paragraphs [0069] and [0094] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses wherein the piezoelectric crystals are activated through changes in pressure, temperature and/or fluid flow within a wellbore and will expand/contract as a result. Further, the system and method include coupling multiple frequency acoustic waves and piezoelectric crystals pumped simultaneously with proppants into the well, thereby inducing cavitation of the crystals. At specific frequencies, the expansion/contraction of the piezoelectric crystals causes cavitation within the fluid in the wellbore or in the proppant pack. The cavitation and acoustic stream caused by the piezoelectric crystal vibration and flow creates drag forces).
Regarding Claim 13, Tutuncu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein introducing cavitation nuclei to the drilling fluid occurs after delivering the drilling fluid downhole (Page 4, paragraphs [0023], [0033] and [0038] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses wherein a fluid comprising a mixture of proppants and a plurality of piezoelectric crystals are pumped into a wellbore downhole. The fluid with the proppants and piezoelectric crystals may be subsequently pumped together into the wellbore or the piezoelectric crystals may be mixed with the proppant before the proppant is pumped into the wellbore, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 14, Tutuncu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the acoustic source is an ultrasonic source (Page 3, paragraphs [0024], [0032] and [0044]; Page 7, paragraphs [0069] and [0094] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses wherein the piezoelectric crystals are activated through changes in pressure, temperature and/or fluid flow within a wellbore and will expand/contract as a result. At specific frequencies, the expansion/contraction of the piezoelectric crystals causes cavitation within the fluid in the wellbore or in the proppant pack. Tutuncu discloses methods of generating a variety of frequencies with the piezoelectric crystals that include ultrasonic source frequencies).
Regarding Claim 15, Tutuncu discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the ultrasonic source operates at a frequency range of 20 to 500 kHz (Page 6, paragraphs [0059]-[0060] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu disclose frequencies between approximately 0.1kHz to approximately 100kHz).
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 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tutuncu et al (U.S Pub 2018/0263441) (“Tutuncu”).
Regarding Claim 16, Tutuncu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein introducing cavitation downhole occurs at specific pressures (paragraphs [0020], [0022] and [0032]; Page 10, paragraph [0108] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Tutuncu discloses wherein the piezoelectric crystals are activated through changes in pressure, temperature and/or fluid flow within a wellbore and will expand/contract as a result. At specific frequencies, the expansion/contraction of the piezoelectric crystals causes cavitation within the fluid in the wellbore or in the proppant pack). Although silent to wherein “the cavitation occurs at a pressure in the range of 5 to 90MPa,” 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 the cavitation to occur at the pressure range 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).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tutuncu et al (U.S Pub 2018/0263441) (“Tutuncu”) in view of Quintero et al (U.S Pub 2012/0015852) (“Quintero”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tutuncu fails to disclose the method of claim 1, wherein creating cavitation nuclei comprises entrapping a gas or gas precursor within pores of a porous nanoparticle.
Quintero teaches wherein creating cavitation nuclei comprises entrapping a gas or gas precursor within pores of a porous nanoparticle (Abstract; paragraphs [0018] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Quintero teaches drilling fluids comprising nanoparticles that contain an encapsulated additive such as acid gases. The nanoparticles may include carbon dioxide, oxygen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) ) for the purpose of providing a drilling fluid containing nanoparticles that contain an encapsulated additive in order to help suspend the nanoparticles in the base fluid for downhole transport in order to stabilize subterranean formations (paragraphs [0011], [0021] and [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Tutuncu to include methods of creating cavitation nuclei comprising entrapping a gas or gas precursor within pores of a porous nanoparticle, as taught by Quintero, because doing so would help to suspend the drilling fluid containing the nanoparticles with an encapsulating additive for downhole transport in order to stabilize subterranean formations.
Regarding Claim 3, Quintero teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the porous nanoparticle contains micropores and mesopores (paragraph [0011] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Quintero teaches mesoporous nanoparticles).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang (U.S Patent 5,472,620) – discloses a process for separating solids from a fluid using at least one polymer and acoustic energy at or above cavitation (Abstract).
Mukhopadhyay (U.S Pub 2012/0325471) – discloses introducing into a wellbore an encapsulated material comprising an encapsulating component formed from a regenerated ionic-liquid-dissolved compound and an active component that is encapsulated; the encapsulating material is then allowed to release the active component into a formation downhole (Abstract; Page 1, paragraphs [0004] and [0005]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays.
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.
/ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
