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 (i.e., preliminary amendment) filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 1—13 and 20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of US Provisional Patent Application (63/564,230) filed on 03/12/2024, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 02/03/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
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 and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the following combination of limitations:
“solving a flow problem associated with one or more perforations created during a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore”;
“calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem”;
“calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem”; and
“updating near-wellbore permeability away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation associated with the first and second amounts of wormhole propagation.”
Claim 1 recites the four limitations identified above as distinct features; however, the claim does not recite the first limitation in a manner which successfully delineates it as a distinct step from the second, third, and fourth limitations. For example, determining a wormhole length and a permeability would reasonably be understood to be part of the solution to a flow equation applied to a subterranean reservoir/formation such that calculating wormhole propagations and associated reservoir permeabilities are not inherently distinct from the solution to a generically recited flow equation. Phrased another way, the claim does not successfully distinguish the metes and bounds of “solving a flow problem” in a manner such that the solution to the flow problem would explicitly not include the determination of the wormhole length and permeability. Accordingly it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the first limitation are with respect to the second, third, and fourth limitations which renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination the second, third, and fourth limitations are understood to be part of solving the flow problem (e.g., limitation one further comprising limitations two, three, and four).
Claims 2—13, which depend from claim 1, are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim. Examiner notes that while the limitations of claims 2—8 function to further define the first limitation as identified above (e.g., directed to solving the flow problem), the limitations do not succeed in generating a clear demarcation of what is solved as an output from the flow problem such that it would not also include determining the wormhole propagation and associated permeabilities.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
“calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations,” and
“calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations.”
While these claim limitations are drafted to recite two distinct elements, one element (e.g., a first amount of wormhole) appears to encompass the other element (e.g., a second amount of wormhole). For example, the second amount of wormhole is understood to be a subsection of the first amount of wormhole where the first amount of wormhole fully encompasses the second amount of wormhole. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any metric or feature capable of establishing a clear demarcation between the first amount of wormhole and the second amount of wormhole. Notably, the term “near” is not defined by the claim or the specification such that one or ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the term as recited in the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 does not establish a clear distinction between the first amount of wormhole and the second amount of wormhole. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. Claims 2—13 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 20 recites the following combination of limitations:
“solving a flow problem associated with one or more perforations created during a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore utilizing a physics-based model to predict an effect of jetting on efficiency of a reactive fluid during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on data collected during the wellbore stimulation operation”;
“calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem”;
“calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem”; and
“updating near-wellbore permeability away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation associated with the first and second amounts of wormhole propagation.”
While the claim recites the above four limitations as distinct features, the claim does not recite the first limitation in a manner which successfully delineates it as a distinct step from the second, third, and fourth limitations. For example, determining a wormhole length and a permeability would reasonably be understood to be part of the solution to a flow equation as applied to a reservoir such that calculating wormhole propagations and associated reservoir permeabilities are not inherently distinct from the solution to a generically recited flow equation. Phrased another way, the claim does not successfully distinguish the metes and bounds of “solving a flow problem” in a manner such that the solution to the flow problem would explicitly not include the determination of the wormhole length and permeability. Accordingly it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the first limitation are with respect to the second, third, and fourth limitations which renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination the second, third, and fourth limitations are understood to be part of solving the flow problem (e.g., limitation one further comprising limitations two, three, and four).
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
“calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on a pressure in an annulus formed between the wellbore and a limited entry liner used to perform the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem,” and
“calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on an impingement pressure directly adjacent the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem.”
While these claim limitations are drafted to recite two distinct elements, one element (e.g., a first amount of wormhole) appears to encompass the other element (e.g., a second amount of wormhole). For example, the second amount of wormhole is understood to be a subsection of the first amount of wormhole where the first amount of wormhole fully encompasses the second amount of wormhole. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any metric or feature capable of establishing a clear demarcation between the first amount of wormhole and the second amount of wormhole. More specifically, the recited pressures (e.g., pressure in an annulus and impingement pressure) which are loosely associated (e.g., “based at least in part on”) with the first amount of wormhole and the second amount of wormhole are also implicitly associated with each other given that all of the relevant pressure locations are in fluidic communication in the wellbore. Notably, the term “near” is not defined by the claim or the specification such that one or ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the term. Accordingly, the claim does not establish a clear distinction between the first amount of wormhole and the second amount of wormhole. Therefore, claim 20 is rendered indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention.
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—13 and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 20 are directed to a method (process) and a method (process) respectively. As such, the claims are directed to 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 recites abstract limitations including:
“solving a flow problem associated with one or more perforations created during a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“updating near-wellbore permeability away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation associated with the first and second amounts of wormhole propagation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept)
Claim 20 recites abstract limitations including:
“solving a flow problem associated with one or more perforations created during a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore”; (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“utilizing a physics-based model to predict an effect of jetting on efficiency of a reactive fluid during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on data collected during the wellbore stimulation operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept)
“a pressure in an annulus formed between the wellbore and a limited entry liner used to perform the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“an impingement pressure directly adjacent the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“updating near-wellbore permeability away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation associated with the first and second amounts of wormhole propagation.” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as “solving a flow problem”; “calculating [a wormhole propagation]”; and “utilizing a physics-based model to predict [values]” constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. Values determined as part of solving a mathematical equation (e.g., a pressure in an annulus and an impingement pressure) are directed to either a mental process, a mathematical concept, or a combination thereof.
Furthermore, as claimed, the limitation “updating near-wellbore permeability” could merely be directed to updating a permeability in a model (e.g., updating the numerical value of permeability in a flow model). For example, the limitation is not recited in a manner which requires any kind of physical action to be taken such that the limitation would be interpreted as an additional element. Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claims 1 and 20 recite 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 additional element of:
“one or more perforations” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use); and
“a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use).
Claim 20 recited the additional elements of:
“one or more perforations” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a reactive fluid during the wellbore stimulation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use); and
“an annulus formed between the wellbore and a limited entry liner” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use)
The above identified limitations of claims 1 and 20 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.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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).
As discussed above, claims 1 and 20 recite the additional elements of “one or more perforations” and “a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore.” Both limitations are merely directed to a field of use and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. With respect to field of use limitations, the MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, claims 1 and 20 do not recite any additional elements which function to integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application or add significantly more than the recited abstract ideas.
As discussed above, claim 20 further recites the additional elements of “a reactive fluid during the wellbore stimulation” and “an annulus formed between the wellbore and a limited entry liner.” Both limitations are merely directed to a field of use and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. With respect to field of use limitations, the MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the further identified additional elements of claim 20 do not function to integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application or add significantly more than the recited abstract ideas.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is directed to limitations which further describe the action of “solving the flow problem,” in a manner which makes it clear that the limitation is directed to a mathematical concept insofar as the flow equation which is solved is expressly a physics-based model. Accordingly claim 2 recites limitations which are directed to a mathematical concept and therefore a judicial exception. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1 because claim 2 is also directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “calibrating tuning parameters of the physics-based model” and is therefore directed to the abstract idea of utilizing a mathematical equation. Accordingly claim 3 recites limitations which are directed to a mathematical concept and therefore a judicial exception. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite limitations which provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1 because claim 3 is also directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 4 further limits the manner in which the tuning parameters are adjusted where both scenarios involve abstract ideas (e.g., utilizing data analytics and machine learning models). Notably, while training a machine learning model constitutes an additional element, merely utilizing a machine learning model is directed to an abstract idea. Moreover, merely utilizing a machine learning model is no different than utilizing any other empirically derived mathematical model. Accordingly claim 4 recites limitations which are directed to one or more mathematical concepts and do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claims 5—8 recite limitations which further define the manner in which the flow problem (e.g., understood to be a mental process and/or mathematical concept) is solved. Accordingly claims 5—8 are directed to abstract ideas comprising mental processes, mathematical concept, and/or combinations thereof. Accordingly claims 5—8 recite limitations which are directed to one or more mathematical concepts and do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 9 further defines the abstract idea of “calculating the first amount of wormhole propagation,” and is therefore directed to abstract ideas related to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations therefore. Accordingly claim 9 recites limitations which are directed to one or more mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 10 further defines the abstract idea of “calculating the second amount of wormhole propagation,” and is therefore directed to abstract ideas related to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations therefore. Accordingly claim 10 recites limitations which are directed to one or more mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 11 is directed to performing the limitations of claim 1 identified as mathematical concepts and or mental processes in an iterative loop and is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly claim 11 recites limitations which are directed to one or more mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claim 12 states the limitation “adjusting one or more operational parameters of the wellbore stimulation operation during each iterative loop of the plurality of iterative loops,” which, at best, constitutes a mere directive to apply the judicial exception and does not provide for a practical application. For example, the limitation of adjusting the operational parameter is not claimed in a manner which adequately integrates the physical action/application with the above identified judicial exceptions. Moreover, the action is merely performed without any consideration, let alone specific consideration, for the determinations/calculations made using the above identified judicial exceptions. With respect to limitations which constitute mere directives to apply the exception (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 12 are merely directed to the idea of a solution or outcome and do not properly integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate a 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) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception. For example, Diehr did not merely state “repetitively calculating a cure time and adjusting the press.” Accordingly the limitations of claim 12 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claim 13 is directed to performing the judicial exception in real-time which does not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because it merely states when the judicial exception is performed. Accordingly claim 13 does not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1—13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Ali (US 20230235656 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ali discloses solving a flow problem associated with one or more perforations created during a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore (para. [0005], “a system for modeling acid flow for acid stimulation of a formation is provided… The operations include receiving data about the acid stimulation. The operations further include modeling, by applying the data about the acid stimulation to a model, a wormhole velocity of an acid injected into the formation during the acid stimulation, wherein the model is a radial model, and wherein the radial model is upscaled from a linear model.” Solving the modelled stimulation operation to determine the wormhole velocity is solving a flow problem.);
calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation (See FIG. 3 which depicts wormholes traversing zones 1, 2, and 3; determining the length of a wormhole which traverses zones two or three constitutes determining the length of the first amount of wormhole propagation) around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations (para. [0018], “[t]he flow control devices 24 may be any suitable structure or configuration capable of injecting or flowing stimulation fluid from the borehole string 12 and/or tubular 18 to the borehole. Examples flow control devices include flow apertures, flow input or jet valves, injection nozzles, sliding sleeves and perforations. In one embodiment, acid stimulation fluid is injected from the surface fluid source 26 through the tubular 18 to a sliding sleeve interface configured to provide fluid communication between the tubular 18 and a borehole annulus. The acid stimulation fluid can be injected into an annulus formed between the tubular 18 and the borehole wall and/or from an end of the tubular, e.g., from a coiled tubing.”) created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem (para. [0066], “the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.”; See para. [0068]—[0070] which discusses the relationship between acid volume, wormhole length, pump rate, and skin factor);
calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation (See FIG. 3 which depicts wormholes traversing zones 1, 2, and 3; determining the length of a wormhole which traverses zones one and two or one through three constitutes determining the length of the second amount of wormhole propagation where the second amount of wormhole is implicitly part of and also indistinguishable from the second amount of wormhole for the reasons provided as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations (para. [0018], “[t]he flow control devices 24 may be any suitable structure or configuration capable of injecting or flowing stimulation fluid from the borehole string 12 and/or tubular 18 to the borehole. Examples flow control devices include flow apertures, flow input or jet valves, injection nozzles, sliding sleeves and perforations. In one embodiment, acid stimulation fluid is injected from the surface fluid source 26 through the tubular 18 to a sliding sleeve interface configured to provide fluid communication between the tubular 18 and a borehole annulus. The acid stimulation fluid can be injected into an annulus formed between the tubular 18 and the borehole wall and/or from an end of the tubular, e.g., from a coiled tubing.”) created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on the solved flow problem (para. [0066], “the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.”; See para. [0068]—[0070] which discusses the relationship between acid volume, wormhole length, pump rate, and skin factor); and
updating near-wellbore permeability away from the one or more perforations (para. [0066], “[f]or example, the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.”; see para. [0066]—[0069] and FIGs. 16—19 which discuss and depict the skin reduction resulting from the various acid job programs. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the calculated post-job skin is equivalent to an updated permeability insofar as skin is a metric indicative of resistance to fluid flow in a reservoir) created during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0017], “[a]cid stimulation is useful for, e.g., removing the skin on the borehole wall that can form when a wellbore is formed in a formation, such as a carbonate formation or another suitable type of formation.”; para. [0027], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein provides for modeling acid distribution for acid stimulation of a formation to predict wormhole growth during matrix acidizing. Matrix acidizing is a stimulation process wherein acid is injected into a wellbore to penetrate rock pores. Matrix acidizing is a method applied for removing formation damage from pore plugging caused by mineral deposition. The acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”) and near the one or more perforations (the above citation to para. [0066]—[0069] and FIGs. 16—19 apply here as well) created during the wellbore stimulation operation associated with the first and second amounts of wormhole propagation.
Regarding claim 2, Ali discloses solving the flow problem utilizing a physics- based model (darcy velocity model; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities. Using Darcy velocity instead of interstitial velocity improves wormhole modeling by eliminating the effect of porosity on wormhole velocity.” See also para. [0028]—[0044] which describes how the physics-based model utilizes lab generated linear flow data which is upscaled to generate a radial model usable to predict the performance wellbore operations) to predict an effect of jetting on efficiency of a reactive fluid during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on data collected during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0027], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein provides for modeling acid distribution for acid stimulation of a formation to predict wormhole growth during matrix acidizing… The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage. The operation time depends on such parameters as the length of the wellbore, the rock type, severity of the damage, acid pumping rate, downhole conditions and other factors. It may be desirable to predict wormhole growth in order to improve hydrocarbon recovery.”; para. [0066], “[f]or example, the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.” Predicting the post-job skin factor is equivalent to predicting the effectiveness of acidization job.).
Regarding claim 3, Ali discloses calibrating tuning parameters (para. [0036], “[i]n these equations, a1-a17, b1-b12, and e1-e3 are tuning parameters, which can be derived from and tuned using experimental data including laboratory and/or field data...”) of the physics- based model utilizing experimental and field treatment data (see above, the tuning parameters are at least derived from experimental lab and field data), real-time telemetry, production logs, flow quantification logs or distributed sensing results.
Regarding claim 4, Ali discloses adjusting the tuning parameters of the physics-based model based on data analytics and machine learning methods (para. [0036], “In these equations, a1-a17, b1-b12, and e1-e3 are tuning parameters, which can be derived from and tuned using experimental data including laboratory and/or field data…” Examiner submits, deriving parameters from data implicitly requires analysis).
Regarding claim 5, Ali discloses wherein solving the flow problem comprises determining one or more pressures (para. [0043], “[a]t block 402, the surface processing unit 30 receives data about the acid stimulation. According to an embodiment, the data is linear core flow data. The data can be laboratory data, field data, and/or combinations thereof. According to one or more embodiments described herein, receiving the data can include collecting the data, such as in a laboratory environment, at a wellbore operation (e.g., in the field), and/or the like. For example, one or more sensors (e.g., temperature sensors, pressure sensors, etc.) can be used to collect the data.”; para. [0019], “[v]arious sensors or sensing assemblies may be disposed in the system to measure downhole parameters and conditions. For example, pressure and/or temperature sensors may be disposed at the production string at one or more locations (e.g., at or near injection devices 24). Other types of sensors can also be implemented. Such sensors may be configured as discrete sensors such as pressure/temperature sensors or distributed sensors.” The pressure sensors in the tubular 18 provide information which inform the model as described in method 400 inform the model) in a limited entry liner (LEL) (para. [0018], “The flow control devices 24 may be any suitable structure or configuration capable of injecting or flowing stimulation fluid from the borehole string 12 and/or tubular 18 to the borehole. Examples flow control devices include flow apertures, flow input or jet valves, injection nozzles, sliding sleeves and perforations.” The tubular 18 constitutes a limited entry liner insofar as the tubular 18 includes discrete and limited flow conduits provided by the flow control devices 24) used to perform the wellbore stimulation operation, one or more pressures in an annulus formed between the wellbore and the LEL (the Darcy velocity is used to solve a portion of the flow problem which is then used to calculate the wormhole length. The Darcy velocity may be expressed as a function of pressure where the whole system, from the pumps at the surface to path the acid is travelling through the formation, is fluidically connected. Accordingly, knowing and/or determining the pressure within the annular space and/or the pressure applied at the face of the formation is implicitly part of determining a pressure-based Darcy velocity for a fluid injected into a formation), and one or more pressures in a formation through which the wellbore extends (para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities… Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of… a pressure drop over a given distance.”).
Regarding claim 6, Ali discloses wherein solving the flow problem comprises determining an impingement pressure directly adjacent the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0027], “[t]he acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities… Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of… a pressure drop over a given distance.” The Darcy velocity is used to solve a portion of the flow problem which is then used to calculate the wormhole length. The Darcy velocity may be expressed as a function of pressure where the whole system, from the pumps at the surface to path the acid is travelling through the formation, is fluidically connected. Accordingly, the knowing and/or determining the pressure applied at the face of the formation is implicitly part of determining a pressure-based Darcy velocity for a fluid injected into a formation).
Regarding claim 7, Ali discloses wherein solving the flow problem comprises determining one or more flow velocities in a limited entry liner (LEL) used to perform the wellbore stimulation operation, one or more flow velocities in an annulus formed between the wellbore and the LEL, and one or more flow velocities across the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0028], “[u]sing Darcy velocity instead of interstitial velocity improves wormhole modeling by eliminating the effect of porosity on wormhole velocity. Darcy velocity is a flow per unit cross sectional area of a porous medium. Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of instantaneous flux of a fluid flowing through a porous medium…”; The Darcy velocity includes a flow rate through the porous media which implicitly includes a flow rate into the porous media. para. [0054], “[t]he wormhole velocity is controlled by the injection rate and the amount of acid that reaches the wormhole tip.” The Darcy velocity is controlled by injection rate which implicitly has a flow velocity associated with each tubular diameter, fluid passage way, and annular space).
Regarding claim 8, Ali discloses wherein solving the flow problem comprises determining one or more flow rates into a formation through which the wellbore extends and away from jets that form the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation, and one or more flow rates into the formation through which the wellbore extends and near the jets that form the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0028], “[u]sing Darcy velocity instead of interstitial velocity improves wormhole modeling by eliminating the effect of porosity on wormhole velocity. Darcy velocity is a flow per unit cross sectional area of a porous medium. Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of instantaneous flux of a fluid flowing through a porous medium…”; Determining the Darcy velocity includes a flow rate through the porous media which implicitly includes a flow rate into the porous media).
Regarding claim 9, Ali discloses calculating the first amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on a pressure in an annulus (para. [0027], “[t]he acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities… Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of… a pressure drop over a given distance.”) formed between the wellbore and a limited entry liner used to perform the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem (the Darcy velocity is used to solve a portion of the flow problem which is then used to calculate the wormhole length. The Darcy velocity may be expressed as a function of pressure where the whole system, from the pumps at the surface to path the acid is travelling through the formation, is fluidically connected. Accordingly, knowing and/or determining the pressure within the annular space and/or the pressure applied at the face of the formation is implicitly part of determining a pressure-based Darcy velocity for a fluid injected into a formation.).
Regarding claim 10, Ali discloses comprising calculating the second amount of wormhole propagation around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on an impingement pressure directly adjacent the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem (para. [0027], “[t]he acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities… Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of… a pressure drop over a given distance.” The Darcy velocity is used to solve a portion of the flow problem which is then used to calculate the wormhole length. The Darcy velocity may be expressed as a function of pressure where the whole system, from the pumps at the surface to path the acid is travelling through the formation, is fluidically connected. Accordingly, the knowing and/or determining the pressure applied at the face of the formation is implicitly part of determining a pressure-based Darcy velocity for a fluid injected into a formation).
Regarding claim 11, Ali discloses wherein the recited method steps are performed iteratively over time as a plurality of iterative loops (see FIG. 4 which includes an iterative process of performing calculations related to the wormhole velocity and performing stimulation operations based on modified calculations).
Regarding claim 12, Ali discloses adjusting one or more operational parameters of the wellbore stimulation operation during each iterative loop of the plurality of iterative loops (see FIG. 4 which includes an iterative process of performing calculations related to the wormhole velocity and performing stimulation operations based on modified calculations which include operational adjustments as discussed in block 408).
Regarding claim 13, Ali discloses wherein the recited method steps are performed in substantially real-time during performance of the wellbore stimulation operation (workflow 400 is performed by surface processing unit 30 as part of an onsite production stimulation system. As described in para. [0047]—[0048], the operational parameters may be adjusted by the surface processing unit 30 during the iterative workflow 400).
Regarding claim 20, Ali discloses solving a flow problem associated with one or more perforations created during a wellbore stimulation operation performed subsurface in a wellbore (para. [0005], “a system for modeling acid flow for acid stimulation of a formation is provided… The operations include receiving data about the acid stimulation. The operations further include modeling, by applying the data about the acid stimulation to a model, a wormhole velocity of an acid injected into the formation during the acid stimulation, wherein the model is a radial model, and wherein the radial model is upscaled from a linear model.” Solving the modelled stimulation operation to determine the wormhole velocity is solving a flow problem) utilizing a physics-based model (Darcy velocity model; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities. Using Darcy velocity instead of interstitial velocity improves wormhole modeling by eliminating the effect of porosity on wormhole velocity.” See also para. [0028]—[0044] which describes how the physics-based model utilizes lab generated linear flow data which is upscaled to generate a radial model usable to predict the performance wellbore operations) to predict an effect of jetting on efficiency of a reactive fluid during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on data collected during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0027], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein provides for modeling acid distribution for acid stimulation of a formation to predict wormhole growth during matrix acidizing… The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage. The operation time depends on such parameters as the length of the wellbore, the rock type, severity of the damage, acid pumping rate, downhole conditions and other factors. It may be desirable to predict wormhole growth in order to improve hydrocarbon recovery.”; para. [0066], “[f]or example, the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.” Predicting the post-job skin factor is equivalent to predicting the effectiveness of acidization job.);
calculating a first amount of wormhole propagation (See FIG. 3 which depicts wormholes traversing zones 1, 2, and 3; determining the length of a wormhole which traverses zones two or three constitutes determining the length of the first amount of wormhole propagation) around the wellbore and away from the one or more perforations (para. [0018], “[t]he flow control devices 24 may be any suitable structure or configuration capable of injecting or flowing stimulation fluid from the borehole string 12 and/or tubular 18 to the borehole. Examples flow control devices include flow apertures, flow input or jet valves, injection nozzles, sliding sleeves and perforations. In one embodiment, acid stimulation fluid is injected from the surface fluid source 26 through the tubular 18 to a sliding sleeve interface configured to provide fluid communication between the tubular 18 and a borehole annulus. The acid stimulation fluid can be injected into an annulus formed between the tubular 18 and the borehole wall and/or from an end of the tubular, e.g., from a coiled tubing.”) created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on a pressure in an annulus formed between the wellbore and a limited entry liner (para. [0027], “[t]he acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities… Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of… a pressure drop over a given distance.”; the Darcy velocity is used to solve a portion of the flow problem which is then used to calculate the wormhole length. The Darcy velocity may be expressed as a function of pressure where the whole system, from the pumps at the surface to path the acid is travelling through the formation, is fluidically connected. Accordingly, knowing and/or determining the pressure within the annular space and/or the pressure applied at the face of the formation is implicitly part of determining a pressure-based Darcy velocity for a fluid injected into a formation.) used to perform the wellbore stimulation operation that is determined as part of the solved flow problem (para. [0066], “the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.”; See para. [0068]—[0070] which discusses the relationship between acid volume, wormhole length, pump rate, and skin factor);
calculating a second amount of wormhole propagation (See FIG. 3 which depicts wormholes traversing zones 1, 2, and 3; determining the length of a wormhole which traverses zones one and two or one through three constitutes determining the length of the second amount of wormhole propagation where the second amount of wormhole is implicitly part of and also indistinguishable from the second amount of wormhole for the reasons provided as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) around the wellbore and near the one or more perforations (para. [0018], “[t]he flow control devices 24 may be any suitable structure or configuration capable of injecting or flowing stimulation fluid from the borehole string 12 and/or tubular 18 to the borehole. Examples flow control devices include flow apertures, flow input or jet valves, injection nozzles, sliding sleeves and perforations. In one embodiment, acid stimulation fluid is injected from the surface fluid source 26 through the tubular 18 to a sliding sleeve interface configured to provide fluid communication between the tubular 18 and a borehole annulus. The acid stimulation fluid can be injected into an annulus formed between the tubular 18 and the borehole wall and/or from an end of the tubular, e.g., from a coiled tubing.”) created during the wellbore stimulation operation based at least in part on an impingement pressure directly adjacent the one or more perforations created during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0027], “[t]he acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”; para. [0028], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein implements a model that uses Darcy velocity instead of fluid interstitial velocity to accurately simulate wormhole growth and provide prediction capabilities… Darcy velocity can be expressed in terms of… a pressure drop over a given distance.” The Darcy velocity is used to solve a portion of the flow problem which is then used to calculate the wormhole length. The Darcy velocity may be expressed as a function of pressure where the whole system, from the pumps at the surface to path the acid is travelling through the formation, is fluidically connected. Accordingly, the knowing and/or determining the pressure applied at the face of the formation is implicitly part of determining a pressure-based Darcy velocity for a fluid injected into a formation) that is determined as part of the solved flow problem (para. [0066], “the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.”; See para. [0068]—[0070] which discusses the relationship between acid volume, wormhole length, pump rate, and skin factor); and
updating near-wellbore permeability away from the one or more perforations (para. [0066], “[f]or example, the model can be applied to predict wormhole length and post-job skin for acid stimulated wells.”; see para. [0066]—[0069] and FIGs. 16—19 which discuss and depict the skin reduction resulting from the various acid job programs. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the calculated post-job skin is equivalent to an updated permeability insofar as skin is a metric indicative of resistance to fluid flow in a reservoir) created during the wellbore stimulation operation (para. [0017], “[a]cid stimulation is useful for, e.g., removing the skin on the borehole wall that can form when a wellbore is formed in a formation, such as a carbonate formation or another suitable type of formation.”; para. [0027], “[o]ne or more embodiments described herein provides for modeling acid distribution for acid stimulation of a formation to predict wormhole growth during matrix acidizing. Matrix acidizing is a stimulation process wherein acid is injected into a wellbore to penetrate rock pores. Matrix acidizing is a method applied for removing formation damage from pore plugging caused by mineral deposition. The acids, usually inorganic acids, such as fluoridic (HF) and or cloridic (HCl) acids, are pumped into the formation at or below the formation fracturing pressure in order to dissolve the mineral particles by chemical reactions. The acid creates high-permeability, high productivity flow channels called wormholes and bypasses the near-wellbore damage.”) and near the one or more perforations (the above citation to para. [0066]—[0069] and FIGs. 16—19 apply here as well) created during the wellbore stimulation operation associated with the first and second amounts of wormhole propagation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Morgensen et al. (US 20160245049 A1) which teaches a method of simulation acid injection which includes calculating wellbore flow rates according to pipe geometries (see FIG. 5) where the flow model is modelled according to wellbore segments; modelling acid dissolution of the reservoir according to an acid stimulation operation to determine a wormhole length; and converting the determined wormhole length into either a skin factor or a permeability (see para. [0153], [0154]);
Published US Patent Application to Morgensen (US 20230222272 A1) which teaches generating an acid stimulation design for a limited entry liner;
Published US Patent Application to Purdy (US 20190194528 A1) which teaches “interstitial velocity at the wormhole tip controls the wormhole propagation. The optimal acid injection rate is then calculated based on a semi-empirical flow correlation. At optimal injection rate, for a given volume, acid penetrates the furthest into the formation, resulting in the most efficient outcome of the acid stimulation.” (para. [0098]);
Published US Patent Application to Legemah et al. (US 20150330199 A1) which teaches “’[s]kin factor’ is a dimensionless numerical value used to analytically model the difference from the pressure drop predicted by Darcy's law due to skin (zone of reduced permeability immediately around a wellbore). Typical skin factor values range from −6 for an infinite conductivity massive hydraulic fracture to more than 100 for a poorly executed gravel pack.”; and
Published US Patent Application to Peng et al. (US 20230376657 A1) which teaches a method of evaluating the permeability features of an acid stimulation based on the stimulated zone which includes analyzing “near wellbore” stimulation, determination of the effective fracture length, and determination of the associated permeability.
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