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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 contains illegible text that is too small and/or unclear. Additionally, the line quality in Figure1 has poor line quality such that they would result in unsatisfactory reproduction characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(L). Black, dark, lines must be used.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. In this case the abstract is less than 50 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: “applying a pressure pulse, thereby to induce, in a controlled manner, fractures and plastically mobilized regions in the reservoir rock”. At best, the claim is grammatically awkward. It recites: “to induce […] factures and plastically mobilized regions”. It appears that it may intend to recite that the fractures are induced in plastically mobilized regions.
Claim 2 recites “pulses”, however, this is a singular “pressure pulse” in the parent claim. This is grammatically inconsistent.
Claim 5 recites “the well”. Elsewhere e.g. in claims 1, 2, and 4, this was recited as “the injection well”. The examiner recommends consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following is a list of such examples that must be considered as merely examples and not encompassing all of the errors present in the claims. Applicant is required to thoroughly review all of the claims for similar and additional errors and make all necessary changes.
The term “regular operating procedure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regular” 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reservoir rock". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “relatively short duration” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively short duration” 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 “high pressure” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high pressure” 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the water injection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the stationary production unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recite “pore pressure”. It is unclear whether this intends to refer to the previously recites “reservoir pore pressure” in the parent claim or something else. If it is the same, it is unclear why the correct antecedent term was not used.
Claim 4 recites “operational difficulties”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation is intended to convey e.g. whether technical limitations for equipment must be exceeded or whether the difficulties may be inconvenience factors for operations, such as lost time and productivity.
Claim 5 recites “the geomechanical risks”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the integrity of the cap rock”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the minimum stress”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the minimum stress”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “rapid” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santarelli (US 20200199998 A1), in view of Fitzpatrick (US 20130014951 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Santarelli teaches a method of injecting water into oil reservoirs with geomechanical stimulation by pressure pulse, the method comprising:
reducing reservoir pore pressure in a vicinity of an injection well (Fig 6, Para 0069, please note reservoir pressure around “100” is reduced. Note there appears to be a typographical error in the Figure see discussion in specification);
applying a pressure pulse, thereby to induce, in a controlled manner, fractures (Para 0064-0065, “first injection cycle is analysed during its shut-in to ensure that fracturing has occurred”. A “pressure pulse” results from injection then stopping); and
adjusting flow rate and pressure of the injection well to a regular operating situation (Para 0065, “second cycle” may be commenced with a particular rate/pressure. As best understood this is a “regular operating situation” as it is planned and part of the injection procedures).
Santarelli is silent on plastically mobilized regions in the reservoir rock.
Fitzpatrick teaches plastically mobilized regions in the reservoir rock (Para 0037, “the shear bands 203 are induced by plastic deformation of the rock matrix 202c under the pressure of the thin injection fluid.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Santarelli by having the fracturing occur in a plastically mobilized regions in the reservoir rock as disclosed by Fitzpatrick because Fitzpatrick discusses application of injection of a fluid to a degree to fracture the formation, and discusses the details of such a rock matrix. The particulars of the rock matrix would be required to implement the invention of Santarelli and show the implementation of a fluid injection to fracture the formation implementation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Santarelli teaches wherein the water injection is performed under high pressure in pulses of relatively short duration (Para 0065, during the first injection cycle the pressure is high enough to fracture the formation), compared to an injection period of the injection well (Para 0065, in the total context of the injection operation including shut in and second cycle the time is “relatively short”).
Regarding claim 3, Santarelli teaches wherein reduction in the reservoir pore pressure is obtained through total shutting in of the injection well (Para 0064-0065, “first injection cycle is analysed during its shut-in”) or by reducing the injection flow rate to a pre-established minimum value in cases in which complete shutting in of the well causes operational difficulties for the stationary production unit (SPU) (note the first alternative is taught).
Regarding claim 4, Santarelli teaches wherein a sufficient drop in pore pressure in the well region is obtained within 1 to 3 hours of shutting in of the injection well (Para 0064-0065, “first injection cycle is analysed during its shut-in”; there is a pressure drop. This can be considered “sufficient”. The examiner notes the claim does not require any specific end result).
Regarding claim 8, Santarelli teaches wherein the pressure pulse comprises rapid and controlled increase in injection flow rate and pressure for a pre-established period of time (Para 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 9, Santarelli teaches wherein the step of adjusting the injection well to the regular operating situation, the pressure and flow rate are adjusted according to operational restrictions and needs of geomechanical and production management of the reservoir (Para 0063-0064; the examiner notes that whatever the injection rate it cannot exceed the operational restrictions of the system as a whole. The claim does not require any calculation or specific limit).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santarelli (US 20200199998 A1), in view of Fitzpatrick (US 20130014951 A1), in view of Wheeler (US 20190360330 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Santarelli teaches wherein the application of the pressure pulse includes one or more low- or high-pressure pulse (Para 0064-0065, “first injection cycle is analysed during its shut-in to ensure that fracturing has occurred”. This is a high pressure pulse.).
Santarelli is silent on based on a specific geomechanical study for the well that assesses the geomechanical risks to the integrity of the cap rock.
Wheeler teaches based on a specific geomechanical study for the well that assesses the geomechanical risks to the integrity of the cap rock (Para 0003, Abstract, “mechanical properties of caprock are critical to the design of virtually any project involving fluid injection operations (e.g. water [….]” and “An integrity of caprock at the subterranean formation is determined based on the geomechanical model.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Santarelli by having injection based on a specific geomechanical study for the well that assesses the geomechanical risks to the integrity of the cap rock as disclosed by Wheeler because understanding mechanical properties of the cap rock is “critical” to the design of injection operation to ensure its integrity is not compromised.
Regarding claim 6, Santarelli teaches wherein the high- pressure pulse is applied when the injection pressure is greater than the minimum stress in the reservoir rock (Para 0064-0065, “first injection cycle is analysed during its shut-in to ensure that fracturing has occurred”).
Regarding claim 7, Santarelli teaches wherein the low- pressure pulse is applied when the injection pressure is limited to the minimum stress in the reservoir rock (The examiner notes that the parent claim recites the limitation as an alternative and the alternative is taught by the prior art. The examiner understands the claim as limiting when the low-pressure pulse is selected. See claims 5-6 and Para 0064-0065).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (WO 2024077842 A1) teaches determining an initial pulse pressure peak of each rock stratum according to the physical and mechanical properties and the confining pressure of each rock stratum
Yale (CA 2912308 C) teaches increasing a reservoir pore pressure, creating a first differential pressure between at least one injection well and at least one production well within the subsurface formation, producing primary sweep volume, injecting an injection media.
Parrella (US 20170241247 A1) teaches conditions an underground reservoir to cause oil and gas to increase flow, excites the conditioned underground reservoir with pressure waves to further increase flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676