DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 16 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 remain pending in the application. The Non-Final Office Action was mailed 10 December 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears claim 12 should recite “wherein the plug has a pack permeability of less than 100 Darcy” (correcting the typo; including the unit of measure from [0050] Table 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “wherein a size of the bridging particles is between 40/70 and 16/20.”
As in the Specification, Applicant discloses “It is also envisioned that bimodal bridging particles may be used as well. In such embodiments, the size of the bridging particles may be 40/70, or 30/50, or 20/40 or 16/30 or 16/20” ([0021]).
Applicant should note that a size of e.g. 40/70 is already delineating a size range. Specifically, a 40/70 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 40 mesh (425 µm) screen but not a 70 mesh (212 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 212 µm and 425 µm in size. Similarly, a 16/20 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 16 mesh (1180 µm) screen but not a 20 mesh (850 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 850 µm and 1180 µm in size.
Accordingly, it is unclear how “a size of the bridging particles” can be “between 40/70 and 16/20,” because “40/70” and “16/20” each already indicate size ranges with endpoints that the sizes are “between.”
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite, because it is unclear what size(s) would be suitable to meet this limitation.
The Office observes that claim 10 depends from claim 9, which recites “wherein the bridging particles have a bimodal distribution.” It is possible that Applicant inadvertently misstated an intended limitation referring to the sizes of each of the modes of the bimodal distribution.
For examination purposes, claim 10 will be read as though the sizes refer to the modes and is not a range “between” the size distributions (e.g., “wherein the bimodal distribution comprises first bridging particles that are 40/70 and second bridging particles that are 16/20”).
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites “wherein the plurality of bridging particles have a bimodal distribution of a size between 40/70 and 16/20.”
Applicant should note that a size of e.g. 40/70 is already delineating a size range. Specifically, a 40/70 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 40 mesh (425 µm) screen but not a 70 mesh (212 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 212 µm and 425 µm in size. Similarly, a 16/20 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 16 mesh (1180 µm) screen but not a 20 mesh (850 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 850 µm and 1180 µm in size.
Accordingly, it is unclear how “a size of the bridging particles” can be “between 40/70 and 16/20,” because “40/70” and “16/20” each already indicate size ranges with endpoints that the sizes are “between.”
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite, because it is unclear what size(s) would be suitable to meet this limitation.
For examination purposes, claim 19 will be read as though if either mode of the bimodal distribution is 40/70 or 16/20, then the limitation is met.
In response, it appears Applicant may Amend this to recite “wherein the plurality of bridging particles have a bimodal distribution with a first mode of 40/70 and a second mode of 16/20” (clarifying these refer to the modes of the bimodal distribution).
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “wherein the plurality of bridging particles are sand and have a bimodal distribution of a size 30/50.”
A “bimodal” distribution has multiple modes and thus multiple sizes. Also, a 30/50 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 30 mesh (600 µm) screen but not a 50 mesh (300 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 300 µm and 600 µm in size. However, it is unclear how a “bimodal distribution” could have “a size 30/50,” because it is unclear if this refers to just one of the modes of the bimodal distribution, or perhaps if both modes of the bimodal distribution must be within a 30/50 size range, or if there is some other requirement.
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite, because it is unclear what size(s) would be suitable to meet this limitation.
For examination purposes, claim 20 will be read as though if either mode of the bimodal distribution is 30/50, then the limitation is met.
In response, it appears Applicant may Amend this to recite “wherein the plurality of bridging particles are sand and have a bimodal distribution comprising one mode of a size of 30/50” (clarifying that just one mode of 30/50 size would meet this limitation).
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee (2017/0167222) (cited previously) in view of Phatak (2013/0220607), as evidenced by Lord (4,887,670).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses A method (abstract “A method for treating a subterranean formation and for controlling a fracture geometry of a fracture in a subterranean formation”), comprising:
before pumping a first fluid comprising a first plurality of proppant particles into a subterranean formation (e.g., [0019] “the treatment fluid may be pumped or injected into the subterranean formation before additional proppant is injected into the subterranean formation”):
pumping a second fluid ([0020] “The treatment fluid may comprise a fiber and at least two sets of particles” and [0047] “the treatment fluid comprises particles and fibers dispersed in a carrier fluid”) consisting essentially of a carrier fluid ([0046] “The carrier fluid may be any of fresh water, produced water, seawater or brine”), a plurality of bridging particles ([0053] “in addition to the fiber, the treatment fluid includes at least two sets of differently sized particles”), and a plurality of fibers ([0020] “a fiber”) into the subterranean formation, the plurality of bridging particles forming a bridge … within a far field of the subterranean formation (e.g., [0021] “by bridging particles at the far field, there may be a plugging of a fracture in a far field region”), and the plurality of fibers forming a plug with the plurality of bridging particles (e.g., [0020] “the fiber may allow for bridging of particles in the far field”)…
Regarding the “fracture tip,” Lee discloses “the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
“Bridging” in a fracture typically refers to a fracture tip, because particles can only bridge in narrower openings such as fracture tips. Also, in order to control adverse fracture height and length growth, the bridging in the far field as in Lee would have to at least partially occur in the fracture tips (both vertical and horizontal) to block further fracture growth both vertically and horizontally. Accordingly, even if it were somehow found that Lee fails to disclose this per se, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include bridging in the far field in a fracture tip, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control adverse fracture height and length growth at the points of fracture height and length growth, which are the fracture’s tips (thereby including:
“pumping a second fluid consisting essentially of a carrier fluid, a plurality of bridging particles, and a plurality of fibers into the subterranean formation, the plurality of bridging particles forming a bridge in a fracture tip within a far field of the subterranean formation, and the plurality of fibers forming a plug with the plurality of bridging particles”).
Regarding the placement “non-uniformly” etc., Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
However, Lee fails to disclose placing the fluid non-uniformly either along a top and a bottom of the fracture to restrict growth along a height, or along wings of the fracture to restrict growth along a length.
Phatak teaches “a method of well treatment” (abstract) such as for “after well treatment composition is placed in the wellbore or the subterranean formation, at least one plug may be formed in at least one of a perforation, a fracture or the wellbore” ([0048]) wherein “Often it is necessary to plug only a portion of the fracture; this occurs in particular when the fracture is growing out of the desired region into a region in which a fracture through which fluid can flow is undesirable. … There are two techniques to achieve this... In the first ("specific gravity") technique the bridging slurry is pumped before pumping of the main fracture slurry and has a specific gravity different from that of the main fracture slurry. If the filling slurry is heavier than the main fracture slurry, then the plugged portion of the fracture will be at the bottom of the fracture. If the filling slurry is lighter than the main fracture slurry, then the plugged portion of the fracture will be at the top of the fracture. … The second ("placement") technique is to run tubing into the wellbore to a point above or below the perforations. If the objective is to plug the bottom of the fracture, then the tubing is run in to a point below the perforations, and the bridging slurry is pumped down the tubing while the primary fracture treatment slurry is being pumped down the annulus between the tubing and the casing. This forces the filling slurry into the lower portion of the fracture. If the objective is to plug the top of the fracture, then the tubing is run into the wellbore to a point above the perforations. Then, when the filling slurry is pumped down the tubing while the primary fracture treatment slurry is being pumped down the annulus between the tubing and the casing, the filling slurry is forced into the upper portion of the fracture. The tubing may be moved during this operation to aid placement of the particles across the entire undesired portion of the fracture” ([0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include either the “specific gravity” technique or the “placement” technique to place the fluid in the top of the fracture and then in the bottom of the fracture, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “plug only a portion of the fracture” and “aid placement of the particles across the entire undesired portion of the fracture” and thereby control “adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally” as desired by Lee (thereby including: “wherein:
the second fluid is placed non-uniformly along a top and a bottom of the fracture to restrict growth along a height of the fracture, or
the second fluid is placed non-uniformly along wings of the fracture to restrict growth along a length of the fracture”).
For example, Applicant may see the reference to Lord, Figs. 1-12 depicting how such fluid placements would be placed within the top and bottom of a fracture. Applicant may also see Lecerf in the Conclusion for placement non-uniformly along wings/fracture tips to restrict growth along the length.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses “The particles may include some proppant particles, but are not limited to only proppant particles. In some embodiments, the treatment fluid will include a carrier fluid, a fiber and a mixture of solid particles having at least two particle sizes. The particle sizes may be distinct from the size of the proppant that is used in a subsequent injection (an injection of proppant-laden slurry). The particle sizes may also include a particle size matching a size of the proppant to be used in a later proppant-laden slurry injection. The particle size that may match the proppant size may be the larger of the particle sizes. The particle size matching the size of the proppant may or may not correspond to the proppant itself” ([0047]). Accordingly, Lee anticipates “wherein the bridging particles have a particle size equal to or greater than a size of the plurality of proppant particles.”
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lee discloses “the fibers may be selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid (PGA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyester, polyamide, polycaprolactam and polylactone, poly(butylene) succinate, polydioxanone, nylon including nylon 6,6, glass, ceramics, carbon (including carbon-based compounds), elements in metallic form, metal alloys, wool, basalt, acrylic, polyethylene, polypropylene, novoloid resin, polyphenylene sulfide, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene chloride, polyurethane, polyvinyl alcohol, polybenzimidazole, polyhydroquinone-diimidazopyridine, poly(p-phenylene-2,6-benzobisoxazole), rayon, cotton, cellulose and other natural fibers, rubber, and combinations thereof” ([0026]). Accordingly, Lee anticipates:
(claim 3) wherein the plurality of fibers comprises fibers selected from the group of cellulose fibers and cellulose derivative fibers; and/or
(claim 4) wherein the plurality of fibers comprises organic polymer fibers.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses pumping the first fluid comprising the first plurality of proppant particles into the subterranean formation ([0019] “the treatment fluid may be pumped or injected into the subterranean formation before additional proppant is injected into the subterranean formation”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the crimped fibers comprise from 1 to 10 crimps/cm of length, a crimp angle from 45 to 160 degrees, an average extended length of fiber of from 4 to 15 mm, and/or a mean diameter of from 8 to 40 microns, or 8 to 12 microns, or 8 to 10 microns, or a combination thereof” ([0023]).
A length of e.g. ~10 mm and a diameter of e.g. ~20 microns would be an aspect ratio of ~500. Accordingly, although silent to the exact aspect ratio range as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include “wherein the plurality of fibers has an aspect ratio that ranges from 1.5 to 1000,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable lengths and diameters within the general conditions disclosed by Lee. Applicant may note that, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the treatment fluid will include a carrier fluid, a fiber and a mixture of solid particles having at least two particle sizes” ([0047]) such as “An average particle size of a first set of the particles may be from 100 μm to 2 mm. An average particle size of a second set of the particles may be from 1.5 to 20 times smaller than the average particle size of the first set. That is, an average particle size of the second set may be from 5 μm to 1.33 mm, or from 66.6 μm to 100 μm, or from 5 μm to 100 μm, or from 66.6 μm to 1.33 mm” ([0053]). Accordingly, Lee anticipates:
(claim 8) wherein the bridging particles have a multimodal distribution; and further
(claim 9) wherein the bridging particles have a bimodal distribution.
Regarding claim 10, as above in the 112 section, this claim is being treated as though reciting “wherein the bimodal distribution comprises first bridging particles that are 40/70 and second bridging particles that are 16/20.”
Lee discloses “An average particle size of a first set of the particles may be from 100 μm to 2 mm. An average particle size of a second set of the particles may be from 1.5 to 20 times smaller than the average particle size of the first set. That is, an average particle size of the second set may be from 5 μm to 1.33 mm, or from 66.6 μm to 100 μm, or from 5 μm to 100 μm, or from 66.6 μm to 1.33 mm” ([0053]).
A 40/70 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 40 mesh (425 µm) screen but not a 70 mesh (212 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 212 µm and 425 µm in size. Similarly, a 16/20 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 16 mesh (1180 µm) screen but not a 20 mesh (850 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 850 µm and 1180 µm in size.
A first set of particles of e.g. 1 mm = 1000 µm in size would be 16/20 and a second set of particles of e.g. 300 µm in size would be 40/70. Accordingly, although silent to the exact size ranges as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include “wherein the bimodal distribution comprises first bridging particles that are 40/70 and second bridging particles that are 16/20,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable particle sizes within the general conditions disclosed by Lee. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses “An average particle size of a first set of the particles may be from 100 μm to 2 mm. An average particle size of a second set of the particles may be from 1.5 to 20 times smaller than the average particle size of the first set. That is, an average particle size of the second set may be from 5 μm to 1.33 mm, or from 66.6 μm to 100 μm, or from 5 μm to 100 μm, or from 66.6 μm to 1.33 mm” ([0053]).
100 mesh is 150 μm. Accordingly, although silent to the exact size range as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include “wherein a size of the bridging particles is 100 mesh,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitable particle size within the general conditions disclosed by Lee. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses “The treatment fluid may include a low viscosity carrier fluid having a low viscosity, proppant dispersed in the carrier fluid, and fiber dispersed in the carrier fluid. As used herein, a “low viscosity” fluid refers to one having a viscosity less than 50 mPa-s at a shear rate of 170 s−1 and a temperature of 25° C” ([0044]).
50 mPa-s = 50 cP. Accordingly, although silent to the exact size range as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include “wherein the first fluid has a viscosity of at least 4 cP at 511 s-1,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitable carrier fluid viscosity within the general conditions disclosed by Lee. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the treatment fluid comprises from 1.2 to 12 g/L of the fibers based on the total volume of the carrier fluid (from 10 to 100 ppt, pounds per thousand gallons of carrier fluid)” ([0022]). Accordingly, Lee anticipates the ranges of:
(claim 14) wherein a concentration of the plurality of fibers ranges from 0.1 to 1000 ppt; and further
(claim 15) wherein the concentration of the plurality of fibers ranges from 10 to 150 ppt.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]) and “A diverting or plugging operation may involve controlling a particular fracture, perforation or opening by injecting a plugging material into an appropriate location, so as to, for example, protect from fluid loss at the fracture or perforation. The fracture which is plugged may be a fracture intersecting the wellbore, or a fracture that intersects an existing fracture at a distance away from the wellbore. One may want to plug a fracture that is intentionally induced, or a natural fracture of the rock. The diversion or plugging operation may occur by using a fluid having particular materials” ([0016]).
However, Lee fails to disclose applying an additional plurality of bridging particles.
Nevertheless, if the initial plugging operation does not adequately plug all desired sections of the fracture, it would of course be desirable to repeat the plugging operation to ensure complete plugging. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include “applying an additional plurality of bridging particles,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure complete plugging if the initial plugging operation does not adequately plug all desired sections of the fracture.
As observed by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton" and "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Accordingly, Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." MPEP 2141.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the treatment fluid comprises from 1.2 to 12 g/L of the fibers based on the total volume of the carrier fluid (from 10 to 100 ppt, pounds per thousand gallons of carrier fluid)” ([0022]).
Accordingly, as in claim 16, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include “applying an additional plurality of bridging particles,” using e.g. 10-100 ppt fibers and 2+ particle sizes as in the initial plugging operation, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure complete plugging if the initial plugging operation does not adequately plug all desired sections of the fracture using fiber and particles within the general conditions disclosed by Lee (thereby including:
(claim 17) wherein the additional plurality of bridging particles comprises an additional plurality of fibers; and further
(claim 18) wherein a concentration of the additional plurality of fibers ranges from 0.1 to 600 ppt).
See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding independent claim 19, Lee discloses A method (abstract “A method for treating a subterranean formation and for controlling a fracture geometry of a fracture in a subterranean formation”), comprising:
before pumping a first fluid comprising a first plurality of proppant particles into a subterranean formation (e.g., [0019] “the treatment fluid may be pumped or injected into the subterranean formation before additional proppant is injected into the subterranean formation”):
pumping a second fluid ([0020] “The treatment fluid may comprise a fiber and at least two sets of particles” and [0047] “the treatment fluid comprises particles and fibers dispersed in a carrier fluid”) consisting essentially of a carrier fluid ([0046] “The carrier fluid may be any of fresh water, produced water, seawater or brine”), a plurality of bridging particles ([0053] “in addition to the fiber, the treatment fluid includes at least two sets of differently sized particles”), and a plurality of fibers ([0020] “a fiber”) into the subterranean formation, the plurality of bridging particles forming a bridge … within a far field of the subterranean formation (e.g., [0021] “by bridging particles at the far field, there may be a plugging of a fracture in a far field region”), and the plurality of fibers forming a plug with the plurality of bridging particles (e.g., [0020] “the fiber may allow for bridging of particles in the far field”)…
Regarding the “fracture tip,” Lee discloses “the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
“Bridging” in a fracture typically refers to a fracture tip, because particles can only bridge in narrower openings such as fracture tips. Also, in order to control adverse fracture height and length growth, the bridging in the far field as in Lee would have to at least partially occur in the fracture tips (both vertical and horizontal) to block further fracture growth both vertically and horizontally. Accordingly, even if it were somehow found that Lee fails to disclose this per se, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include bridging in the far field in a fracture tip, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control adverse fracture height and length growth at the points of fracture height and length growth, which are the fracture’s tips (thereby including:
“pumping a second fluid consisting essentially of a carrier fluid, a plurality of bridging particles, and a plurality of fibers into the subterranean formation, the plurality of bridging particles forming a bridge in a fracture tip within a far field of the subterranean formation, and the plurality of fibers forming a plug with the plurality of bridging particles”).
Regarding the placement “non-uniformly” etc., Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
However, Lee fails to disclose placing the fluid non-uniformly, such as along a top and a bottom of the fracture to restrict growth along a height, or along wings of the fracture to restrict growth along a length.
Phatak teaches “a method of well treatment” (abstract) such as for “after well treatment composition is placed in the wellbore or the subterranean formation, at least one plug may be formed in at least one of a perforation, a fracture or the wellbore” ([0048]) wherein “Often it is necessary to plug only a portion of the fracture; this occurs in particular when the fracture is growing out of the desired region into a region in which a fracture through which fluid can flow is undesirable. … There are two techniques to achieve this... In the first ("specific gravity") technique the bridging slurry is pumped before pumping of the main fracture slurry and has a specific gravity different from that of the main fracture slurry. If the filling slurry is heavier than the main fracture slurry, then the plugged portion of the fracture will be at the bottom of the fracture. If the filling slurry is lighter than the main fracture slurry, then the plugged portion of the fracture will be at the top of the fracture. … The second ("placement") technique is to run tubing into the wellbore to a point above or below the perforations. If the objective is to plug the bottom of the fracture, then the tubing is run in to a point below the perforations, and the bridging slurry is pumped down the tubing while the primary fracture treatment slurry is being pumped down the annulus between the tubing and the casing. This forces the filling slurry into the lower portion of the fracture. If the objective is to plug the top of the fracture, then the tubing is run into the wellbore to a point above the perforations. Then, when the filling slurry is pumped down the tubing while the primary fracture treatment slurry is being pumped down the annulus between the tubing and the casing, the filling slurry is forced into the upper portion of the fracture. The tubing may be moved during this operation to aid placement of the particles across the entire undesired portion of the fracture” ([0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include either the “specific gravity” technique or the “placement” technique to place the fluid in the top of the fracture and then in the bottom of the fracture, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “plug only a portion of the fracture” and “aid placement of the particles across the entire undesired portion of the fracture” and thereby control “adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally” as desired by Lee (thereby including:
“wherein the second fluid is placed non-uniformly in the fracture”).
Regarding the bimodal distribution of 40/70 and 16/20, Lee discloses “An average particle size of a first set of the particles may be from 100 μm to 2 mm. An average particle size of a second set of the particles may be from 1.5 to 20 times smaller than the average particle size of the first set. That is, an average particle size of the second set may be from 5 μm to 1.33 mm, or from 66.6 μm to 100 μm, or from 5 μm to 100 μm, or from 66.6 μm to 1.33 mm” ([0053]).
A 40/70 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 40 mesh (425 µm) screen but not a 70 mesh (212 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 212 µm and 425 µm in size. Similarly, a 16/20 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 16 mesh (1180 µm) screen but not a 20 mesh (850 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 850 µm and 1180 µm in size.
A first set of particles of e.g. 1 mm = 1000 µm in size would be 16/20 and a second set of particles of e.g. 300 µm in size would be 40/70. Accordingly, although silent to the exact size ranges as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include first particles of e.g. ~1 mm size and second particles of e.g. ~300 µm size, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable particle sizes within the general conditions disclosed by Lee (thereby including:
“wherein the plurality of bridging particles have a bimodal distribution with a first mode of 40/70 and a second mode of 16/20”).
See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding independent claim 20, Lee discloses A method (abstract “A method for treating a subterranean formation and for controlling a fracture geometry of a fracture in a subterranean formation”), comprising:
before pumping a first fluid comprising a first plurality of proppant particles into a subterranean formation (e.g., [0019] “the treatment fluid may be pumped or injected into the subterranean formation before additional proppant is injected into the subterranean formation”):
pumping a second fluid ([0020] “The treatment fluid may comprise a fiber and at least two sets of particles” and [0047] “the treatment fluid comprises particles and fibers dispersed in a carrier fluid”) consisting essentially of a carrier fluid ([0046] “The carrier fluid may be any of fresh water, produced water, seawater or brine”), a plurality of bridging particles ([0053] “in addition to the fiber, the treatment fluid includes at least two sets of differently sized particles”), and a plurality of fibers ([0020] “a fiber”) into the subterranean formation, the plurality of bridging particles forming a bridge … within a far field of the subterranean formation (e.g., [0021] “by bridging particles at the far field, there may be a plugging of a fracture in a far field region”), and the plurality of fibers forming a plug with the plurality of bridging particles (e.g., [0020] “the fiber may allow for bridging of particles in the far field”)…
wherein the plurality of bridging particles are sand ([0048] “In a case where proppant is included in the treatment fluid, either as one or more of the particles or otherwise, the treatment fluid comprises from 0.01 to 1 kg/L of proppant … Some proppants include … sand”) and have a bimodal distribution ([0053] “the treatment fluid includes at least two sets of differently sized particles. An average particle size of a first set of the particles may be from 100 μm to 2 mm. An average particle size of a second set of the particles may be from 1.5 to 20 times smaller than the average particle size of the first set. That is, an average particle size of the second set may be from 5 μm to 1.33 mm, or from 66.6 μm to 100 μm, or from 5 μm to 100 μm, or from 66.6 μm to 1.33 mm”) …, and
wherein the plurality of fibers are derived from cellulose ([0026] “the fibers may be … cellulose and other natural fibers”) …
Regarding the “fracture tip,” Lee discloses “the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
“Bridging” in a fracture typically refers to a fracture tip, because particles can only bridge in narrower openings such as fracture tips. Also, in order to control adverse fracture height and length growth, the bridging in the far field as in Lee would have to at least partially occur in the fracture tips (both vertical and horizontal) to block further fracture growth both vertically and horizontally. Accordingly, even if it were somehow found that Lee fails to disclose this per se, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include bridging in the far field in a fracture tip, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control adverse fracture height and length growth at the points of fracture height and length growth, which are the fracture’s tips (thereby including:
“pumping a second fluid consisting essentially of a carrier fluid, a plurality of bridging particles, and a plurality of fibers into the subterranean formation, the plurality of bridging particles forming a bridge in a fracture tip within a far field of the subterranean formation, and the plurality of fibers forming a plug with the plurality of bridging particles”).
Regarding the 30/50 size, Lee discloses “An average particle size of a first set of the particles may be from 100 μm to 2 mm. An average particle size of a second set of the particles may be from 1.5 to 20 times smaller than the average particle size of the first set. That is, an average particle size of the second set may be from 5 μm to 1.33 mm, or from 66.6 μm to 100 μm, or from 5 μm to 100 μm, or from 66.6 μm to 1.33 mm” ([0053]).
A 30/50 size indicates that substantially all (e.g., >90%) particles pass through a 30 mesh (600 µm) screen but not a 50 mesh (300 µm) screen, and thus substantially all particles are between 300 µm and 600 µm in size.
A first set of particles of e.g. 1 mm = 1000 µm in size would be 16/20 and a second set of particles of e.g. 450 µm in size would be 30/50. Accordingly, although silent to the exact size range as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable particle sizes within the general conditions disclosed by Lee (thereby including:
“wherein the plurality of bridging particles are sand and have a bimodal distribution comprising one mode of a size of 30/50”).
See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding the 2 mm length fibers, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the crimped fibers comprise … an average extended length of fiber of from 4 to 15 mm” ([0023]).
However, Lee fails to specify fibers of 2 mm length.
Nevertheless, this appears to be a typical and ordinary length for fibers in plugging operations in the art. For example, Phatak teaches “a method of well treatment” (abstract) such as for “after well treatment composition is placed in the wellbore or the subterranean formation, at least one plug may be formed in at least one of a perforation, a fracture or the wellbore” ([0048]) wherein “the non-functionalized cellulose material may also be a fiber. Suitable fibers may have a length of from about 2 to about 25 mm” ([0037]).
Accordingly, although silent to the exact fiber length as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include 2 mm length fibers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide suitable fiber lengths within the general conditions suitable for plugging operations (thereby including:
“wherein the plurality of fibers are derived from cellulose with a mean length of 2 mm”).
See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
For example, the Office observes that Applicant has disclosed no particular criticality to using 2 mm length fibers in particular as opposed to longer or shorter fibers.
Regarding the placement “non-uniformly” etc., Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
However, Lee fails to disclose placing the fluid non-uniformly either along a top and a bottom of the fracture to restrict growth along a height, or along wings of the fracture to restrict growth along a length.
Phatak teaches “a method of well treatment” (abstract) such as for “after well treatment composition is placed in the wellbore or the subterranean formation, at least one plug may be formed in at least one of a perforation, a fracture or the wellbore” ([0048]) wherein “Often it is necessary to plug only a portion of the fracture; this occurs in particular when the fracture is growing out of the desired region into a region in which a fracture through which fluid can flow is undesirable. … There are two techniques to achieve this... In the first ("specific gravity") technique the bridging slurry is pumped before pumping of the main fracture slurry and has a specific gravity different from that of the main fracture slurry. If the filling slurry is heavier than the main fracture slurry, then the plugged portion of the fracture will be at the bottom of the fracture. If the filling slurry is lighter than the main fracture slurry, then the plugged portion of the fracture will be at the top of the fracture. … The second ("placement") technique is to run tubing into the wellbore to a point above or below the perforations. If the objective is to plug the bottom of the fracture, then the tubing is run in to a point below the perforations, and the bridging slurry is pumped down the tubing while the primary fracture treatment slurry is being pumped down the annulus between the tubing and the casing. This forces the filling slurry into the lower portion of the fracture. If the objective is to plug the top of the fracture, then the tubing is run into the wellbore to a point above the perforations. Then, when the filling slurry is pumped down the tubing while the primary fracture treatment slurry is being pumped down the annulus between the tubing and the casing, the filling slurry is forced into the upper portion of the fracture. The tubing may be moved during this operation to aid placement of the particles across the entire undesired portion of the fracture” ([0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include either the “specific gravity” technique or the “placement” technique to place the fluid in the top of the fracture and then in the bottom of the fracture, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “plug only a portion of the fracture” and “aid placement of the particles across the entire undesired portion of the fracture” and thereby control “adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally” as desired by Lee (thereby including: “wherein;
the second fluid is placed non-uniformly along a top and a bottom of the fracture to restrict growth along a height of the fracture, or
the second fluid is placed non-uniformly along wings of the fracture to restrict growth along a length of the fracture”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Phatak (as evidenced by Lord) as in claim 1, and further in view of Osiptsov (2011/0272159).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses “In some embodiments, the bridging of particles occurs in the far field so as to plug the fracture and stop particles from propagating still further into the formation. Such a method may include plugging a fracture or fractures by virtue of the bridging of particles in the far field, and this method as described herein may allow for adverse fracture height and length growth, and fracture geometry generally, to be adequately controlled during subterranean formation treatments” ([0055]).
However, Lee fails to specify the degree of pack permeability of the plug in the fracture which stops further propagation and adequately controls adverse fracture height and length growth.
Nevertheless, this must be a relatively low permeability in order to achieve Lee’s goals, and further it appears that this is a typical and ordinary degree of pack permeability for plugging operations in the art. For example, Osiptsov teaches “A method is given for creating a fracture, in a subterranean formation, that has a fluid flow barrier at the top, at the bottom, or at both the top and the bottom. The method is applied before or during a conventional hydraulic fracturing treatment and is used to limit undesired vertical growth of a fracture out of the productive zone” (abstract and Figs.) wherein “Any particles used in the oilfield as a proppant, lost circulation, or fluid loss control additive may be used as the barrier particles. … The choice of particle material (density, shape, size) is based primarily on the settling (rising) rate, fracture width, fluid viscosities, and screenout potential. The nature of the particles, and their amount and concentration, are preferably selected so that the barrier formed has a permeability between about 0.0 and about 1.0 Darcy” ([0038]).
Accordingly, although silent to the exact pack permeability range as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include a pack permeability of e.g. 0.0-1.0 Darcy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitably low permeability within the general conditions suitable for plugging operations (thereby including “wherein the plug has a pack permeability of less than 100 Darcy”). See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 16 January 2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 over Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, based on Applicant’s Amendment to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 over Lee in view of Phatak, and the arguments do not apply to the combination being used in the current rejection.
In the case of further Amendments, Applicant is advised to consider what are the critical features of the current Invention, and how do these critical features interact in the Invention in order to produce the unique phenomena of the Invention.
Nevertheless, Applicant is advised to beware the inclusion of New Matter.
As always, Applicant may consider contacting the Examiner for an Interview or the like, in the case further explanation or guidance is desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The reference to Lecerf (2016/0168968) depicts non-uniformly plugging a fracture tip in a far field diversion (Figs. 3A & 3B), stating “Referring to FIG. 3B, plugging of a fracture tip may occur. The plugging may be a result of the solid agglomerations that were formed as a result of shrinking of the shrinkable materials. The plugged fracture tips 3A-3C may comprise an amount of slurry which may further comprise an amount of shrunk shrinkable materials. Additional fracture diversion may occur pursuant to the plugging of the fracture tips. Additional fractures 4 may be formed, the additional fractures optionally being connected, either directly or indirectly, to the original fracture 3, so as to increase the complexity or otherwise change the geometry of the fracture 3” ([0063]) and “Referring to FIG. 3C, fracture shape change may occur pursuant to the plugging of the fracture tip. The fracture width may increase from a dimension d1 to d2. Such increase width may allow for a larger proppant diameter to be placed in the fracture allowing for more fracture conductivity and for more production rate. Referring to FIG. 3D, fracture shape change may occur pursuant to the plugging of the fracture tip. The fracture height may increase from a dimension h1 to h2. Such increase height may, for example, allow for contacting a thick pay zone, allowing for more production rate and more ultimate recovery of hydrocarbon” ([0066]-[0067]). However, this reference does not appear necessary at this time.
Applicant's 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 ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674