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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19 & 21-32 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendment filed on June 9, 2026. Claims 5, 12, 18 & 20 stand canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19 & 21-32 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. Nguyen further teaches one or more embodiments wherein a plurality of treatment fluids are delivered in a multistage treatment [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]), where any intermediate fluid would appear to disclose “delivering a buffer fluid into the wellbore” as an intermediate 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.
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “delivering a buffer fluid” and “wherein the first media is delivered ahead of the second media and the buffer fluid is delivered intermediate the first and 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 and the buffer fluid 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 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 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 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 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 further 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 28, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants' amendments regarding the claim objections and the 35 USC § 112 rejections are persuasive and, therefore, these objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-32 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As such, for reasons discussed below, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Nguyen, as set forth above, with updates to address amendments.
Applicants assert that Nguyen does not disclose providing swellable particulates in a first region of the fracture towards a fracture tip and providing proppants in a second region of the fracture towards the wellbore, as recited by claim; rather, Nguyen teaches that the proppants are diverted to a different reservoir interval or location; and the purpose of Nguyen, which is centered around using swellable particulates to divert a treatment fluid to a different formation zone, is unrelated to recited claim 1 or the instant example embodiments, which deliver swellable particulates and proppants into the same formation zone; and that Nguyen does not teach delivering a buffer fluid into the wellbore intermediate the swellable particulates and proppants as instantly claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nguyen discloses a fracture as referring collectively to main and branch fractures (Nguyen: Section [0023]), where the main and branch areas are considered regions within the “fracture” as broadly and instantly claimed. 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. Nguyen further teaches one or more embodiments wherein a plurality of treatment fluids are delivered in a multistage treatment [0025]-[0029], [0032]-[0039] & [0081]), where any intermediate fluid would appear to disclose “delivering a buffer fluid into the wellbore” as an intermediate 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.
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with “delivering a buffer fluid” and “wherein the first media is delivered ahead of the second media and the buffer fluid is delivered intermediate the first and 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 and the buffer fluid as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance complex fracture networks and/or yield predictable results in fracturing applications..
Applicants assert that the citation to a "multistage fracturing treatment," in Nguyen, does not anticipate delivering a buffer fluid into the wellbore, and Nguyen [0008] defines a "multistage fracturing treatment" as a "subterranean formation operation in which a plurality of reservoir intervals, or a plurality of locations within one or more reservoir intervals, in the subterranean formation are stimulated in succession."; that Nguyen defines a multistage fracturing treatment as an operation in which different zones of the formation are stimulated in succession, which is in direct contrast to claim 1, which calls for the proppants to be delivered to the same fracture zone as the swellable particulates.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited, Nguyen [0008] discloses multistage fracturing of a plurality of locations within an interval. The claims broadly recite delivering into a fracture and do not appear to recite any differentiating features with respect to the treatment zone or interval as asserted.
Applicants assert that (1) the instant example embodiments provide for swellable particulates at the fracture tip that may prevent or delay unwanted fluids, which have migrated from neighboring zones in the formation, from entering the fracture; and exert a compressive force creating a region of localized stress around the fracture tip, providing certain benefits; and (2) the introduction of a buffer fluid intermediate the swellable particulates and proppants provides the technical effect of encouraging the swellable particulates to travel to the fracture tip ahead of the proppants, and there would be no reason for the skilled person to consider modifying Nguyen to include delivering a buffer fluid into the wellbore to encourage the swellable particulates to travel to the fracture tip ahead of the proppants, and thereby arriving at the benefits associated with the instant example embodiments.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicants’ invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicants rely (i.e., the prevention or delay of unwanted fluids migrated from neighboring zones in the formation; the buffer fluid providing the technical effect of encouraging the swellable particulates to travel to the fracture tip ahead of the proppants; benefits associated with the instant example embodiments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights