DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-32 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application and Preliminary Amendment filed on March 17, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 & 27-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “prior to performing the first step of delivering the first media”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with -prior to the delivering of the first media- is required.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the first media comprises”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with - wherein the first media further comprises – is suggested. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 28-31 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 27.
Claim 29 recites “defined by”. Deletion of this phrase is required to improve clarity of the claim.
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 5, 18 & 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the swellable particulates are configured to be substantially unaffected by substances the swellable particulates are expected to encounter during their operational lifetime”. As broadly recited, the scope, metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear.
The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 “substantially” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the degree required to be considered “substantially”.
Further, it is unclear what “substantially unaffected” encompasses. Unaffected how? Does this refer to a reaction, swelling, shrinking, degrading, other? It is also unclear what “substances….expected to encounter” encompasses. Does this refer to naturally occurring subterranean materials, injected materials, materials that make up downhole equipment, above-ground materials, other? It is unclear what the “substances” are and how they do not affect the particulates. Also, as broadly claimed, “substances” could also include the swelling activator itself, which swells the particulates and thereby affects the particulates; which is also unclear.
It is also unclear what “operational lifetime” refers to. Is this with respect to the operation of creating the fluid barrier, the operation of the well, time in well, time staying swollen, above ground storage/transportation, other?
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 18 recites “a preliminary injection test”. It is unclear what this limitation refers to and what it includes/excludes. What is the test preliminary to? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 20 recites “a perceived operational lifetime”. It is unclear what this limitation refers to. Is this with respect to the operation of creating the fluid barrier, the operation of the well, time in well, time staying swollen, other? Further, what does perceiving the lifetime encompass? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2018/0149008).
With respect to Claim 1, Nguyen discloses a method for treating a geological formation surrounding a wellbore (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011]), comprising: delivering a first media into the wellbore and into a fracture in the geological formation, the first media comprising a plurality of swellable particulates comprising a swellable material configured to volumetrically swell in response to exposure to a swelling activator; and delivering a second media into the wellbore and into the fracture in the geological formation, the second media being different to the first media and comprising a plurality of proppants (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029]).
Nguyen further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the second media is delivered to the main area of the fracture after delivery of the first media to one or more branch areas of the fracture; and one or more embodiments where the one or more branch areas of the fracture are in the far-field region, and the main fracture area is between the far-field region and the wellbore, to enhance complex fracture networks (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0023], [0024] & [0032]-[0039]); which is considered to provide for one or more embodiments “wherein the first media is delivered ahead of the second media such that the swellable particulates are provided in a first region of the fracture towards a fracture tip and the proppants are provided in a second region of the fracture between the first region of the fracture and the wellbore”.
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “wherein the first media is delivered ahead of the second media such that the swellable particulates are provided in a first region of the fracture towards a fracture tip and the proppants are provided in a second region of the fracture between the first region of the fracture and the wellbore”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to deliver the first and second media as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance complex fracture networks and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications.
With respect to Claim 2, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the intervals are treated and intended for the production of fluids (Nguyen: Sections [0008] & [0025]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “flowing a formation product from the geological formation through the fracture with the swellable particulates in the first region of the fracture”, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to flow a formation product as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to benefit from the treatment and/or yield predictable results in enhanced hydrocarbon production operations.
With respect to Claim 3, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the formation product comprises hydrocarbons or a geothermal fluid” (Nguyen: Sections [0008] & [0025]).
With respect to Claim 4, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the swellable particulates are non-degradable” (Nguyen: Sections [0043]-[0057]); where Nguyen does not disclose the swellable particulates as necessarily degradable, which is considered to disclose the feature as instantly claimed.
With respect to Claim 5, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses the swellable particulates as effective in creating the fluid barrier until removal is desired (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0025], [0026] & [0041]); which is considered to disclose “wherein the swellable particulates are configured to be substantially unaffected by substances the swellable particulates are expected to encounter during their operational lifetime” as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 6, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein at least one of the first and second media is delivered into the wellbore at a pressure that exceeds a fracture pressure of the formation to create the fracture in the geological formation” (Nguyen: Sections [0025], [0026] & [0033]).
With respect to Claim 7, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments “wherein the swellable particulates comprise a coating configured to degrade after a certain duration of time” to enhance complex fracture networks and hydrocarbon production (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0025], [0026], [0043]-[0057] & [0078]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to employ swellable particulates comprising a coating as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance complex fracture networks and/or hydrocarbon production; and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications.
With respect to Claim 8, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the swelling of the swellable particulates is adjusted/controlled/tailored, such as by selection of type, size, coating, triggers etc., to enhance complex fracture networks and hydrocarbon production (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0035], [0026], [0042]-[0057] & [0078]), which is considered to teach “wherein the swellable particulates are configured to swell at a certain swell rate in response to exposure to the swelling activator to provide the swellable particulates in a swelled condition after a certain duration of time”. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to employ swellable particulates configured as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance complex fracture networks and/or hydrocarbon production; and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications.
With respect to Claim 9, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…forming a bridge with at least a portion of the swellable particulates in the first region of the fracture” (Nguyen: Section [0010]).
With respect to Claim 10, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the first media comprises a first carrier fluid, and the second media comprises a second carrier fluid” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]).
With respect to Claim 11, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 10, and further discloses “…wherein the first and second carrier fluids are or comprise the same or different fluids” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]).
With respect to Claim 12, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…delivering a buffer fluid into the wellbore intermediate the first media and the second media” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]); wherein Nguyen discloses the delivery of a plurality of treatment fluids in a multistage treatment, where any intermediate fluid would appear to disclose delivery of a “buffer fluid” as broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 13, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the first media is delivered into the wellbore at a first pressure and the second media is delivered into the wellbore at a second pressure” (Nguyen: Sections [0025], [0026] & [0033]).
With respect to Claim 14, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 13, where it would appear that the first and second pressure will comprise the same or different pressures. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 15, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the first media is delivered into the wellbore at a first flowrate and the second media is delivered into the wellbore at a second flowrate” (Nguyen: Sections [0002], [0025], [0026] & [0033]).
With respect to Claim 16, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 15, where it would appear that the first and second flowrates will comprise the same or different flowrates. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 17, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the first and second media are delivered into the wellbore as part of a hydraulic fracturing process” (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011]).
With respect to Claim 18, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 17, and further discloses “…wherein the first media is delivered into the wellbore as, or as part of, a preliminary injection test” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]); wherein Nguyen discloses the delivery of a plurality of treatment fluids in a multistage treatment, which would appear to comprise preliminary stages and disclose delivery as or as part of “a preliminary injection test” as broadly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 19, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses the delivery of a plurality of treatment fluids in adjacent intervals and/or fractures in a multistage treatment, where a prior stage would appear to disclose delivery of a third media as instantly claimed (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]). To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 20, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses the swellable particulates as effective in creating the fluid barrier until removal is desired (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0025], [0026] & [0041]); which is considered to disclose “wherein the swellable particulates are configured to remain in a swelled condition for a perceived operational lifetime” as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Nguyen and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 21, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the swellable particulates swell to a range that overlaps with the range as instantly claimed, where the amount of swell is selected based on factors such as particulate type, duration of sealing required, fracture size etc. to form an effective seal (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0026] & [0040]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the amount of swelling to the range as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a suitable swell amount based on factors such as particulate type, duration of sealing required, fracture size etc., with a reasonable expectation of success, to form an effective seal insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal swell amount to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising swellable particulates with the amount of swell depending on operational factors as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Nguyen, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired swell amount, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 22, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the swelling activator is at least one of water and oil” (Nguyen: Section [0041]).
With respect to Claim 23, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the swellable particulates comprise materials such as superabsorbent polymer (Nguyen: Section [0054]); wherein such materials are considered “configured to swell by osmosis” (See Evidence: Code; US 2011/0296883; Section [0034]).
With respect to Claim 24, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 10, and further discloses “…wherein at least one of the first and second carrier fluids comprise the swelling activator” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]).
With respect to Claim 25, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…exposing the swellable particulates to the swelling activator after the swellable particulates have been provided in the first region of the fracture” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039], [0041] & [0081]).
With respect to Claim 26, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the swellable particulates comprise a grain size distribution that overlaps the range as instantly claimed, where the size is selected based on factors such as particulate type, expansion size, fracture size etc. to form an effective seal (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011], [0026] & [0042]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the grain size distribution to the range as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a suitable grain size distribution based on factors such as particulate type, expansion size, fracture size etc., with a reasonable expectation of success, to form an effective seal insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal grain size distribution to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising swellable particulates sized depending on operational factors as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Nguyen, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a desired grain size distribution, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 27, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein the first media comprises a plurality of fibre elements” (Nguyen: Sections [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0058]-[0060])
With respect to Claim 28, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 27, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the fibre elements are configured to adhere to one another and/or the swellable particulates to enhance the seal (Nguyen: Sections [0063]-[0076]), which is considered “…wherein the fibre elements are configured to adhere to one another to create a web arrangement for constraining movement of the swellable particulates in response to exposure to an adhesion activator”. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to employ fibre elements configured as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the seal and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications.
With respect to Claim 29, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 27, and further teaches one or more embodiments where adhesive materials are activated under downhole conditions, such as temperature, to enhance the seal (Nguyen: Sections [0063]-[0080]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to employ the adhesion activator as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the seal and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications.
With respect to Claim 30, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 27, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the fibre elements comprise a core-shell configuration to enhance the seal (Nguyen: Sections [0058]-[0080]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with this feature, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to employ fibre elements comprising a core-shell configuration as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the seal and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications.
With respect to Claim 31, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 27, and further appears to teach an amount of the fibre elements in the first media in a range that overlaps with the range as instantly claimed, where the amount is selected based on factors such as particulate type, fracture size etc. to form an effective seal (Nguyen: Sections [0007]-[0011] & [0061]. As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the weight of the fibre elements to the range as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a suitable amount of fibre elements based on factors such as particulate type, fracture size etc., with a reasonable expectation of success, to form an effective seal insofar as because it has been held. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, based on the actual conditions encountered in the formation, one of ordinary skill would recognize the optimal amount to employ therein in order to obtain the desired result.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for increasing oil recovery, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising components as set forth above, in an amount depending on operational factors as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Nguyen, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the components, such as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 32, Nguyen teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further discloses “…wherein delivering the first and second media into the wellbore comprises pumping the first and second media into the wellbore” (Nguyen: Sections [0011] & [0086]-[0089]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lecerf et al. (US 2015/0159465) discloses methods employing swellable particulates and/or fibers in fracturing applications in a subterranean formation
Droger et al. (US 2015/0344772) discloses a methods employing swellable particulates and/or fibers in fracturing applications in a subterranean formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674