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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 05/02/2025. Claims 1—9 and 11—15 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of WIPO Patent Application PCT/US2023/028525 filed on 07/25/2023, which claims priority to Foreign Patent Application RU-2022120415, filed in the Russian Federation on 07/25/2022, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 05/02/2025 and 09/04/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 utilizes acronyms to refer to multiple computer models where the acronym was not previously presented according to the full name of the associated models. Amending the claims to recite the full name of the models currently referred to using the acronyms would overcome the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1—9 and 11—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 1 is directed to a method (process) and is therefore directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recite(s) abstract limitations including:
“determining properties of a reservoir, hydraulic fracturing materials and a wellbore to be stimulated” (e.g., a mental process);
“selecting one or more preliminary designs for a hydraulic fracturing treatment and initiation of well production, wherein the selection of the one or more preliminary designs comprises selection of a maximal pressure drop between the reservoir and the wellbore during the wellbore startup and production” (e.g., a mental process); and
“selecting a treatment design and a well startup design” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes. For example, actions such as “determining” and “selecting” constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind. Moreover, limitations directed to a design or plan (e.g., including limitations directed to generating a design or plan) constitute mental processes and therefore also constitute abstract ideas. The MPEP states the following regarding mental processes:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III). Accordingly, the above identified limitations of claim 1 are directed to abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to additional elements:
“entering data from stages (a) and (b) into one or more computer models for calculating well productivity after the hydraulic fracturing treatment” (e.g., extra-solution activity);
“performing a hydraulic fracturing treatment according to the design of stage (d)” (e.g., mere directive to apply the identified abstract ideas recited at a high level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”); and
“initiating well startup and production” (e.g., mere directive to apply the identified abstract ideas recited at a high level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
The above identified limitations of claim 1 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “entering data from stages (a) and (b) into one or more computer models for calculating well productivity after the hydraulic fracturing treatment,” which constitutes an additional element directed to extra-solution activity. However, the material of the limitation is directed to subject matter which the courts have identified as insignificant extra-solution activity such that the limitation does not provide for a practical application of the identified abstract ideas. For example, the MPEP states “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);… iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (MPEP 2106.05 (d), Section II). Accordingly the limitations of claim 1 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “performing a hydraulic fracturing treatment according to the design of stage (d),” and “initiating well startup and production,” which both constitute a mere directive to apply the judicial exception in a manner which does not provide for a practical application. With respect to such limitations (e.g., equivalent to “apply it”) the MPEP states:
“[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 1 are merely directed to the idea of a solution or outcome and do not properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application include the limitations of Diehr. For example, the MPEP states “[i]n contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation ‘in a rubber molding process’. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of Diehr which integrated the abstract idea (e.g., calculations using the Arrhenius equation) into a practical application (e.g., opening the press automatically once the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception than that of the instant claims. For example, Diehr did not merely state “performing the mold operation according to the calculated time.” Accordingly the limitations of claim 1 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2—8 function to further define the abstract idea of claim 1 insofar the claims function to further define the computer models (e.g., fracture conductivity models and well production models) used to perform the abstract ideas recited in claim 1. More specifically, the limitations of claims 2—8 are directed to abstract ideas comprising computer models used to perform calculations which constitute either or both of mental processes and mathematical concepts. For example, the MPEP states the following regarding mental processes:“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
Furthermore, the MPEP states the following regarding mathematical calculations:“[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C).
Accordingly the limitations of claims 2—8 are directed to abstract ideas (e.g., mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) and cannot provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 11—15 function to further define the abstract idea of claim 1 in a manner which renders the limitations abstract. For example, the limitations of claims 9 and 11—15 further define the design considerations used in generating and selecting hydraulic fracturing designs and wellbore operation guidelines. As discussed above, the generation and selection of designs (e.g., and design materials), along with the designs themselves, constitute abstract ideas directed to mental processes (e.g., claims 9 and 11—15). In some situations, the mental processes may further benefit from the application of a mathematical concept (e.g., claims 12 and 13). See the MPEP citations directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts as provided above with respect to claims 2—8. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 9 and 11—15 are directed to abstract ideas which do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide for a practical application of the identified abstract ideas of claim 1.
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(s) 1—6, 9, and 11—15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Lau et al., hereinafter “Lau” (US 20190186247 A1) in view of Non-Patent Literature to Mirani et al., hereinafter “Mirani” (see attached paper titled Production-Pressure-Drawdown Management for Fractured Horizontal Wells in Shale-Gas Formations published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers) and Published US Patent Application to Carvajal et al., hereinafter “Carvajal” (US 20160259088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lau discloses [a] method for hydraulic fracturing (FIGs. 3, 4A—4D, and 5) and wellbore startup (FIG. 5, para. [0148], [0144], and [0151] as described below), comprising:
a. determining properties of a reservoir (para. [0143], “[f]or example, the workflow 200 may start with the selection module 210 to select wells and/or stages for treatment. This module 210 may contain input data and may compare and contrast fracture potential between multiple well(s) or well stage(s). The input data may be collected from multiple sources, including core samples, log data, and field data. The collected data and/or attributes may include reservoir characteristics (e.g., depth, pore pressure gradient, porosity, permeability, total organic content (TOC), water saturation) and the geo-mechanical properties of the play (e.g., Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, rock strength, cohesion and shmin gradient (minimum horizontal in-situ stress)), which may be ranked and integrated to predict the fracture potential.”), hydraulic fracturing materials (para. [0144], “[t]he property design module 220 is then used to design/configure the characteristics of the fluid, proppant, and gas to be used in the operation (100)…”; para. [0069], “[t]he proppant 46 can be selected based on reservoir conditions. For example, high concentrations and/or high-strength proppant can be used to minimize proppant embedment and crush to reduce the risk of the fractures closing. The rheological properties of the fracturing fluid are chosen to get the proppant to where it is most needed in the reservoir to maximize long-term production. Sufficient pumping equipment (34) is needed at surface to provide the required pressure, as well as all of the equipment for handling and mixing the proppant with the fracture fluid.”) and a wellbore to be stimulated (see above citation to para. [0143] related to selection module 210 where wellbores, fracture stages, and/or hydrocarbon plays are analyzed for hydraulic fracture and refracturing operations);
b. selecting one or more preliminary designs for a hydraulic fracturing treatment (para. [0144], “[t]he property design module 220 is then used to design/configure the characteristics of the fluid, proppant, and gas to be used in the operation (100).”; para. [0041], “) and initiation of well production (para. [0144], “the fracture and EOR design module 230 is used to design/configure the characteristics of the treatment, resultant production, etc.”)
d. selecting a treatment design (para. [0041], “choosing a best stimulation design by a comparison of the predicted result corresponding to a typical design plan, wherein fracturing parameters of the planned stimulation operations are optimized based upon an extent of conductive reservoir volume, the enhanced oil recovery efficiency, and the production efficiency.”; see also citation to para. [0148] as provided below) and a well startup design (para. [0148], “[t]he fracture design module 230 may first simulate proppant transport using the fluid and proppant properties exported from the previous analysis and may quantify proppant coverage and distribution using an advanced geo-mechanical model. The geo-mechanical analysis may model hydraulic fracture propagation, fracture height growth, natural fracture reactivation, and proppant transport within both new fractures and reactivated fracture networks. The geo-mechanical model may also simulate enhanced oil recovery, may simulate proppant mechanical deformation (both embedment and crush), and may simulate the resulting EOR and fracture closure behavior during production to quantify conductivity reservoir volume for production analysis. Once an acceptably optimized engineering design is obtained, the workflow 200 may output design parameters to the execution module 240 for use in controlling the treatment operation (100).”; para. [0151], “performing a simulation to assess a proppant embedment and crush and fracture surface closure behavior during production; performing a simulation to simulate the enhanced oil recovery; and performing a simulation to forecast the enhanced oil recovery and production efficiency. A best stimulation design is chosen based on a comparison of the predicted result corresponding to a typical design plan.” Examiner notes that assessment of the stimulation design includes an assessment of proppant embedment and production forecasting based on simulation production. These assessments are performed at module 230 and executed at module 240.);
e. performing a hydraulic fracturing treatment according to the design of stage (d) (see FIG. 5 which outlines the workflow 200 including: wellbore/hydrocarbon play candidate selection 210, fluid/proppant/gas design 220, and fracture/EOR design 230. The selections made at analysis modules 210, 220, and 230 culminate with performing the selected treatment at execution module 240.); and
f. initiating well startup and production (para. [0148], “[t]he geo-mechanical model may also simulate enhanced oil recovery, may simulate proppant mechanical deformation (both embedment and crush), and may simulate the resulting EOR and fracture closure behavior during production to quantify conductivity reservoir volume for production analysis. Once an acceptably optimized engineering design is obtained, the workflow 200 may output design parameters to the execution module 240 for use in controlling the treatment operation (100).”; para. [0144], “the fracture and EOR design module 230 is used to design/configure the characteristics of the treatment, resultant production…”; para. [0151], “performing a simulation to assess a proppant embedment and crush and fracture surface closure behavior during production; performing a simulation to simulate the enhanced oil recovery; and performing a simulation to forecast the enhanced oil recovery and production efficiency. A best stimulation design is chosen based on a comparison of the predicted result corresponding to a typical design plan.” Examiner notes that assessment of the stimulation design includes an assessment of proppant embedment and production forecasting based on simulation production. These assessments are performed at module 230 and executed at module 240. Accordingly, the production behavior along with the enhanced oil recovery behavior is part of the stimulation design which is modeled and subsequently executed at execution module 240.).
Lau may not disclose the following limitations:
“wherein the selection of the one or more preliminary designs comprises selection of a maximal pressure drop between the reservoir and the wellbore during the wellbore startup and production”; and
“c. entering data from stages (a) and (b) into one or more computer models for calculating well productivity after the hydraulic fracturing treatment.”
Regarding the first identified limitation, Lau discloses the following:
“performing a simulation to assess a proppant embedment and crush and fracture surface closure behavior during production; performing a simulation to simulate the enhanced oil recovery; performing a simulation to forecast the enhanced oil recovery and production efficiency” (Lau, para. [0041]); and
“[t]he geo-mechanical model may also simulate enhanced oil recovery, may simulate proppant mechanical deformation (both embedment and crush), and may simulate the resulting EOR and fracture closure behavior during production to quantify conductivity reservoir volume for production analysis.” (Lau, para. [0148]).
Accordingly, Lau clearly contemplates the effects of production-induced fracture closure on the selected fracture design; however, Lau may not specifically recite the selection of a maximal pressure drop for the initial production/flowback operations.
Mirani, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to pressure draw-down management in order to optimize the performance of hydraulically fractured wells teaches item one as identified above. For example Mirani teaches “[i]nitially, the measure of the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) was thought to have a direct relationship with the initial production rate. This has prompted operators to operate the wells at very-high pressure drawdowns to report high initial production rates. However, this was usually accompanied by a very-steep productivity decline. This behavior was first rationalized and described by Miller et al. (2010). In their study, they showed compelling field data where shale-gas wells produced under controlled (limited) pressure drawdown resulted in flatter decline curves, larger drainage area, and possibly higher EUR compared with other wells that were produced at uncontrolled pressure drawdown.” (Mirani, page 550, Introduction towards the middle of the page). Accordingly, Mirani acknowledges in the introduction of the paper that maintaining the drawdown pressure below a threshold (e.g., a maximum drawdown) results in improved wellbore performance. Mirani further teaches “[a]s such, our model can be successfully used as a pressure-drawdown-management tool for recovery optimization in any given shale-gas formation. Proper drawdown management and the penalty for lower initial production rates in unconventional shale-gas reservoirs can yield substantially higher ultimate recovery. This integrated model can be used for optimization of key parameters during the hydraulic-fracture design, for fine tuning production history matching, and especially as a predictive tool for pressure-drawdown management.” (Mirani, page 562, Conclusion and Recommendations). Accordingly, the pressure drawdown management tool which limits the draw down pressure can be used to optimize a hydraulic fracture design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the features and methods of Mirani to the hydraulic fracture planning method of Lau. The features and methods of Mirani perform the same function as described in Mirani alone as they would in combination with the method of Lau in order to generate the predictable result of increasing the ultimate produced volume of hydrocarbons from a hydraulically fractured well.
Regarding item two, Carvajal, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to estimating well productivity and fracture conductivity in fractured reservoir systems teaches item two as identified above. For example, Carvajal teaches entering data from stages (a) and (b) into one or more computer models for calculating well productivity after the hydraulic fracturing treatment (Carvajal, para. [0064], “[t]he method 100 therefore, estimates well production performance over time in fractured reservoir systems using real-time down-hole information. In this manner, the method 100 can be used to identify i) the production performance of each fracture stage; ii) the closed fractures that need to be re-fractured; and iii) the fractures that generate underbalance or back-flows in the entire production profile. The method 100 can also be used to i) generate a flow regime profile; ii) generate recommendations to re-stimulate or re-fracture specific zones; iii) maximize oil sweep efficiency for each reservoir region thus, allowing a homogeneous oil drainage along the horizontal section of the well; and iv) evaluate reservoir model connectivity with fractures.”; Carvajal, para, [0023], “[t]he method 100 also uses real-time information from fiber optics such as distributed acoustic sensors (DAS) and DTS to estimate the geo-mechanical parameters that affect the fracture geometry and thus, productivity, due to reservoir pressure depletion and bottom-hole pressure during production.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the features and methods of Carvajal to the method of Lau as modified by Mirani. The features and methods of Carvajal perform the same function as described in Carvajal alone as they would in combination with the method of Lau as modified by Mirani in order to generate the predictable result of estimating fractured well production performance on a stage-by-stage basis including productivity.
Regarding claim 2, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the one or more computer models comprise hydraulic fracturing, fracture conductivity and well production models (Carvajal, para. [0064], “[t]he method 100 therefore, estimates well production performance over time in fractured reservoir systems using real-time down-hole information. In this manner, the method 100 can be used to identify i) the production performance of each fracture stage; ii) the closed fractures that need to be re-fractured; and iii) the fractures that generate underbalance or back-flows in the entire production profile. The method 100 can also be used to i) generate a flow regime profile; ii) generate recommendations to re-stimulate or re-fracture specific zones; iii) maximize oil sweep efficiency for each reservoir region thus, allowing a homogeneous oil drainage along the horizontal section of the well; and iv) evaluate reservoir model connectivity with fractures.”; Carvajal, para, [0023], “[t]he method 100 also uses real-time information from fiber optics such as distributed acoustic sensors (DAS) and DTS to estimate the geo-mechanical parameters that affect the fracture geometry and thus, productivity, due to reservoir pressure depletion and bottom-hole pressure during production.” Examiner notes that the well production models of Carvajal use data gathered after the hydraulic fracturing operations to assess well performance).
Regarding claim 3, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the one or more computer models comprise PKN, KGD, Radial, Pseudo 3D, Planar 3D, Full 3D or UFM or combinations thereof (Carvajal teaches a full 3-dimensional model as depicted in FIG. 4A; para. [0050], “[t]he data corresponding to the CFN model may include, for example, the number of 3D fracture planes for a cluster per fracturing stage. The 3D fracture planes are constructed based on a temporal analysis of micro-seismic imaging events. In FIG. 4A, a display 400 a of a collection of interpreted micro-seismic imaging events associated with a fracture cluster is illustrated.”).
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 2 which recites alternative embodiments (e.g., one or more computer models comprise hydraulic fracturing, fracture conductivity and well production models) and where claim 2 was rejected using an embodiment (e.g., well production models) which does not extend to the subject matter of claims 4 and 5 (e.g., fracture conductivity model).
Regarding claim 6, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the well production model accounts for heterogeneous distribution of fracture conductivity evolving with time (Carvajal, para, [0023], “[t]he method 100 also uses real-time information from fiber optics such as distributed acoustic sensors (DAS) and DTS to estimate the geo-mechanical parameters that affect the fracture geometry and thus, productivity, due to reservoir pressure depletion and bottom-hole pressure during production.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the selection of the one or more preliminary designs (Lau; module 220 and 230) comprises selection of concentrations (Lau, “proppant concentration” as set forth in para. [0039] and volumes (Lau, para. [0023], “an amount of pressure and fluid volume can be determined that are sufficient to induce additional fracture length of the at least one existing fracture.”; Lau, para. [0042], “[s]electing the operational parameters can comprise selecting a modified pumping schedule. To select the modified pumping schedule, an injection time, rate, proppant type, gas type, fluid property, liquid-gas or gas-liquid ratios, and alternating frequency between liquid and gas can be changed.” Examiner notes that a pumping schedule which includes injection time and injection rate also implicitly includes a total amount of pumped base fluid.) of the hydraulic fracturing materials (Lau, “fracturing fluid type… proppant type” as set forth in para. [0039]), and pumping rate (Lau, para. [0039], “[s]electing the operational parameters can comprise selecting one or more of a fracturing fluid type, a gas type, a proppant type, a proppant concentration, a pumping rate, and an alternating frequency between fluid and gas.”).
Regarding claim 11, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the selection of the one or more preliminary designs comprises pulsing injection of the hydraulic fracturing materials (see FIG. 3 and Figs. 4A—4D which present a fracturing design which alternates between pumping liquid with proppant and injection of gas. Alternating between these two injection fluids constitutes pulsing injection of fracturing materials.).
Regarding claim 12, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the treatment design is selected to maximize well productivity (Lau, para. [0041], “choosing a best stimulation design by a comparison of the predicted result corresponding to a typical design plan, wherein fracturing parameters of the planned stimulation operations are optimized based upon an extent of conductive reservoir volume, the enhanced oil recovery efficiency, and the production efficiency.”).
Regarding claim 13, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein a maximal pressure drop between the reservoir and the wellbore is selected to maximize well productivity (Mirani; “[a]s such, our model can be successfully used as a pressure-drawdown-management tool for recovery optimization in any given shale-gas formation. Proper drawdown management and the penalty for lower initial production rates in unconventional shale-gas reservoirs can yield substantially higher ultimate recovery. This integrated model can be used for optimization of key parameters during the hydraulic-fracture design, for fine tuning production history matching, and especially as a predictive tool for pressure-drawdown management.” (Mirani, page 562, Conclusion and Recommendations).).
Regarding claim 14, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the hydraulic fracturing materials comprise fluids (Lau, para. [0071], “[t]he liquid interval 42 can be a water-based fluid, an oil-based fluid, a polymer-based fluid, a foam, slick water, a specialized synthetic fluid, a linear gel, a cross-linked gel, or the like suited to the implementation. The liquid interval 42 can be a liquefied gas, such as a water-based fluid mixed with gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) (with or without proppant).”), proppants (proppant 46 as recited throughout the reference to Lau) and additives (see above citation to para. [0071] along with diverter as recited in Lau in para. [0080] which states “[d]iversion can be achieved mechanically with tools, such as plugs, sliding sleeves, or other mechanical diverter 70 for the fracture treatment. The diverter 70 can be a particulate diverter or can be a chemical diverter, such as a polyactic acid (PLA), a ployglycolic acid (PGA), or the like.”).
Regarding claim 15, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teach wherein the additives comprise fibers, fluid-loss additives, diverting agents (Lau, para. [0080], “[d]iversion can be achieved mechanically with tools, such as plugs, sliding sleeves, or other mechanical diverter 70 for the fracture treatment. The diverter 70 can be a particulate diverter or can be a chemical diverter, such as a polyactic acid (PLA), a ployglycolic acid (PGA), or the like.”), breakers, corrosion inhibitors, friction reducers (Lau, para. [0071], “[t]he liquid interval 42 can be a water-based fluid, an oil-based fluid, a polymer-based fluid, a foam, slick water, a specialized synthetic fluid, a linear gel, a cross-linked gel, or the like suited to the implementation. The liquid interval 42 can be a liquefied gas, such as a water-based fluid mixed with gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) (with or without proppant).”), scale inhibitors, surfactants (Lau, para. [0073], “The liquid interval 42, such as a polymer-based fluid of either slick water or other synthetic fluid, can contain surfactants that modify the phase behavior of the gas interval 44 at the gas-liquid interface of the introduced fluids.”), water soluble polymers, oil-soluble polymers, crosslinkers (Lau, para. [0071], “[t]he liquid interval 42 can be a water-based fluid, an oil-based fluid, a polymer-based fluid, a foam, slick water, a specialized synthetic fluid, a linear gel, a cross-linked gel, or the like suited to the implementation. The liquid interval 42 can be a liquefied gas, such as a water-based fluid mixed with gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) (with or without proppant).”), biocides, pH adjusting agents or buffers, or combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Lau et al., hereinafter “Lau” (US 20190186247 A1) in view of Non-Patent Literature to Mirani et al., hereinafter “Mirani” (see attached paper titled Production-Pressure-Drawdown Management for Fractured Horizontal Wells in Shale-Gas Formations published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers) and Published US Patent Application to Carvajal et al., hereinafter “Carvajal” (US 20160259088 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Issued US Patent Application to Graham et al., hereinafter “Graham” (US 3664420 A).
Regarding claim 7, while Carvajal of Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal teaches a fracture productivity as defined by equation five (5) as set forth in para. [0033] of Carvajal, Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal may not explicitly disclose calculating a wellbore productivity index. Graham, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to assessing the performance of hydraulic fracture operations, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Graham teaches “[t]he fracture geometry has a pronounced effect upon the degree of stimulation afforded by the fracturing treatment. FIG. 2 shows the relationship of the many factors which effect stimulation. The ordinate, denoted stimulation ratio, is the quantity J/J.sub.o, where J is the productivity index after fracturing and J.sub.o is the productivity index before fracturing. Productivity index is a measure of the producing ability of a well taking into account the pressure drawdown on the reservoir. It is commonly used as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of a stimulation treatment.” (Graham, Col. 3, Lines 15—24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the wellbore productivity index as a method of assessing the hydraulic fracturing operation as taught by Graham to the hydraulic fracturing method of Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal. The wellbore productivity index of Graham would perform the same operation in Graham as it would as combined with Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal. The combination would create the predictable result of providing for an additional method for evaluating the effectiveness of the hydraulic fracturing treatment. Moreover, Graham states that the wellbore productivity index is a commonly used method for analyzing the effectiveness of a stimulation treatment. Accordingly, Graham provides teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to use such a metric in assessing the hydraulic fracturing operation of Lau modified by Mirani and Carvajal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is not rejected under the prior art of record as provided above; however, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the recitation of subject matter directed to a judicial exception without providing for a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, merely amended independent claim 1 with the subject matter of claim 8 will not place the application in condition for allowance. The subject matter was not rejected under the prior art of record because the following limitation was not found at the time of examination “wherein the well production model calculates an equivalent fracture conductivity constant for which the well production is the same as that for heterogeneous conductivity distribution.”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Huang et al., (US 20160139588 A1) which teaches developing and assessing hydraulic fracture designs in a significantly similar manner as that recited in at least claim 1. Huang et al. further teaches pulsed fracture designs used to generate pillars of proppant along with teaching real-time analysis of the hydraulic fracture operation. Accordingly, Huang teaches planning, assessing, executing, and modifying a hydraulic fracture operation which includes the disclosure of multiple features recited throughout the instant claims; and
Non-Patent Literature to Xu et al. (“Pressure Drawdown Management Strategies for Multifractured Horizontal Wells in Shale Gas Reservoirs: A Review”) which teaches multiple methods and studies related to controlling the drawdown pressure between the reservoir and the wellbore during initial production operations to increase ultimate recovery from the associated wellbores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights