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 .
The amended claims filed 6/23/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-13 are currently pending.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is amended to recite “stimulating a length of a fracking system within a borehole of a well, the fracking system located within a casing within a reservoir of the well and including a plurality of stimulation sections alternating within the casing with a plurality of extraction sections, wherein the stimulating including injecting pressurized fracking fluid into rock surrounding the casing…” It is unclear how the stimulation is only to occur within the casing while it involves injecting into the rock surrounding the casing. Stimulation generally occurs outside the casing, so it is unclear what process Applicant is attempting to claim.
Claim 7 contains similar language, the rest of the dependent claims inherit the deficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (WO 2019136533) in view of Kjorholt (US 20120043081).
CLAIM 1: Perkins discloses a mining method. The method comprises stimulating a length of a fracking system within a borehole (10) of a well (to generate a “zone of mobilized hydrocarbons 14”), the fracking system located within a casing within a reservoir of the well and including a plurality of stimulation sections alternating within the casing with a plurality of extraction sections (see Fig. 2, 7). The stimulating including injecting pressurized fracking fluid (108) into rock (206) surrounding the casing and the plurality of stimulation sections, wherein the plurality of stimulation sections comprise a first cross-sectional area of a stimulation pathway and an extraction pathway, the first cross-sectional area defined by a cross-section taken on a first plane perpendicular to directions of flow of the fracking fluid and extraction fluid in the length of the fracking system (see Fig. 2, showing zones of mobilized hydrocarbons, Fig. 7 showing completion devices 612 spaced out); and extracting extraction fluid from the well simultaneously with the stimulating of the well, the extracting including extracting the extraction fluid from rock surrounding the casing and the plurality of extraction sections (paragraphs 284-285), wherein the plurality of extraction sections comprise a second cross-sectional area of the stimulation pathway and the extraction pathway taken on a second plane parallel to the first plane (see zones of Fig. 2).
Perkins fails to disclose a difference between the first cross-sectional area and the second cross-sectional area causes a pressure differential to form in the stimulation pathway at a border between one of the stimulation sections and one of the extraction sections.
Kjorholt discloses a method for recovering hydrocarbons.
Kjorholt discloses a first and second cross-sectional area for stimulation and extraction sections (see Fig. 3). A pressure differential forms at the border between the sections (see paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Perkins to have the pressure differential of Kjorholt with a reasonable expectation of success as Kjorholt teaches the pressure can be used to control the fluid flow (see paragraph 0038).
CLAIM 2: Perkins discloses expanding, from the fracking system, at least one barrier positioned at the border between one stimulation section and one extraction section and forming a seal between the barrier and a casing of the borehole (sealing devices 540).
CLAIM 4: Perkins discloses positioning the fracking system within the borehole (see Fig. 2), wherein the fracking system comprises the extraction pathway receiving the extraction fluid and transporting the extraction fluid to an outlet of the borehole, and the stimulation pathway, separate from the extraction pathway, for receiving the fracking fluid and introducing the fracking fluid to the borehole (see paragraphs 284-85 discussing paths).
CLAIM 6: Perkins discloses the fracking system comprises a plurality of resource extraction tools, each tool corresponding to a stage of the well, each stage tool mated in a series along the borehole of the well, and each tool including at least one extraction section and at least one stimulation section (see Fig. 6, showing parts of 512 with stages being shown by apertures 542/546).
CLAIM 7: Perkins discloses a fracking system. The system comprises a plurality of resource extraction tools, each tool corresponding to a stage of a well (sections of device 512 for sections of the zones in the borehole 510, see Fig. 6), and each tool comprising an outer casing (paragraph 0285); a stimulation section within respective stage of the well, wherein the stimulation section comprises a first cross-sectional area of a stimulation pathway and an extraction pathway the first cross-sectional area defined by a cross-section taken on a first plane perpendicular to directions of flow of fracking fluid and extraction fluid in the length of the respective stage (see Fig. 2, zones), an extraction section neighboring the stimulation section within the respective stage, wherein the extraction section comprises a second cross-sectional area of the stimulation pathway and the extraction pathway taken on a second plane parallel to the first plane (see Fig. 2); the stimulation pathway in the stimulation section in communication with the stimulation pathway in the extraction section, the stimulation pathway connected to at least one stimulation perforation in the outer casing and configured to provide a fracking fluid from the at least one stimulation pathway to an exterior of the respective tool through the stimulation perforation (see Fig. 6); the extraction pathway in the stimulation section in communication with the extraction pathway in the extraction section, the extraction pathway connected to at least one extraction perforation in the outer casing and configured to drain an extraction fluid from the exterior of the respective tool through the extraction perforation and into the extraction pathway; and a barrier between the stimulation section and the extraction section, the barrier configured to expand beyond the outer casing and into the exterior of the respective tool, mate with a casing of a borehole, and divide the exterior of the respective tool into a stimulation portion of the exterior and an extraction portion of the exterior (see Fig. 6).
Perkins fails to disclose a difference between the first cross-sectional area and the second cross-sectional area causes a pressure differential to form in the stimulation pathway at a border between one of the stimulation sections and one of the extraction sections.
Kjorholt discloses a first and second cross-sectional area for stimulation and extraction sections (see Fig. 3). A pressure differential forms at the border between the sections (see paragraph 0038).
CLAIM 8: Perkins discloses each tool further comprising: a first mating section at a first end of the respective tool; and a second mating section at a second end of the respective tool; wherein the first mating section is configured to mate with a second mating section of a neighboring tool, and wherein the first and second mating sections include a connection for the stimulation pathways of the respective tool and the neighboring tool and include a connection for the extraction pathways of the respective tool and the neighboring tool (see Fig. 6 showing parts of 512; see also Fig. 15, see also paragraph 0329, 340).
CLAIM 10: Perkins discloses the first and second cross-sectional areas are substantially circular; the extraction pathway runs through an inner portion of the first and second cross-sectional areas comprising a center of the cross section; and the stimulation pathway runs through an outer portion of the first and second cross-sectional areas not comprising the center of the cross section (see Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Kjorholt in further view of Hazel (US 20170145801).
CLAIM 3: Perkins-Kjorholt discloses the elements of claim 2 as discussed above.
Perkins further discloses providing pressure to the pressurized fracking fluid in the fracking system (paragraph 0077).
Perkins fails to disclose wherein the expanding the barrier includes inflating a bladder in the mining tool with the pressurized fracking fluid until the barrier contacts the casing.
Hazel discloses a downhole stimulation system.
Hazel discloses inflatable packers (6) that act as seals along the casing of the borehole (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the seals of Perkins to be the inflatable packers of Hazel with a reasonable expectation of success as the substitution of one known seal for another as the seal of Hazel would perform the same function in the combination as it does in Hazel.
CLAIM 12: Perkins discloses claim 7 as discussed above.
Hazel discloses a bladder (6) configured to receive, based on the pressure differential the fracking fluid from the stimulation pathway positioned to engage the barrier as the bladder inflates with the fracking fluid (Fig. 1; paragraph 0077).
CLAIM 13: Hazel discloses each tool further comprising: a motor (31) configured to receive electrical power from a wiring pathway and to engage the barrier and cause the expansion of the barrier (see Fig. 3, paragraph 0094).
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Kjorholt in further view of Wygnanski (US 20110083855).
CLAIM 5: Perkins-Kjorholt discloses the elements of claim 4 as discussed above.
Perkins fails to disclose wherein the fracking system further comprises a wiring pathway separate from the extraction pathway and separate from the stimulation pathway, and the method further includes one or more of: sensing the well with a sensor connected to wiring in the wiring pathway; and controlling the fracking system by controlling a device connected to the wiring in the wiring pathway.
Wygnanski discloses a wellbore tool operating system.
Wygnanski discloses a control device with wiring pathway separate from the extraction pathway and separate from the stimulation pathway(see Figs. 5, 6; paragraphs 48-57 discussing different segments for each).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Perkins-Kjorholt to have a wiring system as in Wygnanski with a reasonable expectation of success as the combination of known elements in which the pathway would allow the wires to transfer power and signals without interference from the fluids.
CLAIM 9: Wygnanski discloses each tool further comprising: a wiring pathway separate from the extraction pathway and separate from the stimulation pathway; and a device connected to wiring in the wiring pathway (see Claim 5).
CLAIM 11: Wygnanski discloses each tool further comprises: a middle casing between the stimulation pathway and a wiring pathway; and an inner casing between the wiring pathway and the extraction pathway (see Figs. 5,6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As best can be determined, Applicant argues that the zones of the cited art of Perkins exist outside the casing and thus do not meet the amended limitations for alternating sections within the casing. However, as shown in Fig. 7, the zones outside the casing are generated by devices within the casing. In other words, the alternating sections in the rocks are created by alternating sections within. Therefore, the amended language is still taught by the prior art.
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 PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights