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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayasse (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0007988).
In reference to claim 1, Ayasse discloses a method of reducing the decline curve in production rate for an existing well in a formation, the method comprising:
a. identifying a producing well 90 (par. 0136) that has a production rate (Fig. 9, either of the curves (b) or (d)), wherein the production rate is at least 20% below an initial production rate for the well (Fig. 9); and wherein the well has a closure pressure (par. 0172);
b. pumping a restimulation fluid into the well 90 at a predetermined flow rate and predetermined pressure (par. 0163),
c. whereby, the production rate of the well is increased by not less than 50% (Fig. 9, curves (b) or (d)).
In this embodiment Ayasse does not make clear that the closure pressure of the well is not exceeded. In other embodiments, Ayasse discloses that the closure pressure of the well is not exceeded (par. 0172, “safe (non-fracturing) level of 23,000 kPa”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maintain the pressure below the closure pressure with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid creating new fractures in the formation.
In reference to claim 2, Ayasse discloses that there is no perceivable fracturing of the formation (par. 0172, “safe (non-fracturing) level of 23,000 kPa”).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,731,448. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Al-Muntasheri et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0214857) discloses maintaining static conditions with a stimulation fluid (par. 0114).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD HARCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-7303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571)272-4137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRAD HARCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
1/21/26