DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill.
With respect to claim 2, Hill teaches a method of measuring a width of a fracture in a subterranean zone, the method consisting of: selecting a first point along said fracture; selecting a second point along said fracture whereby said second point is on an opposite side of said fracture than said first point; installing a measuring device within said zone; filling said zone with a fluid to be stored; and measuring a distance between said first and said second point. (par. 14, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 6, Hill teaches one of said points is a section of open hole rock. (par. 17, Fig. 3)
With respect to claims 11-12, Hill teaches said measuring occurs during fracturing of said zone or during operating of said zone. (par, 18-19)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 7-10 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill.
With respect to claims 5 and 7-8, although Hill does not explicitly discussed that one of set points is a section of casing, a plug or a packer, these are all common downhole structures which represent fixed points and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose such points to represent the edge of a fracture.
With respect to claims 9-10, although Hill does not explicitly discuss that the measuring device is an LVDT foreign interferometer, these are both well-known devices for measuring fracture width and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include these alternative methods of measurement in order to measure the fracture predictably.
With respect to claims 13-14, although hill does not explicitly discuss Predictions resulting from the measurement, it is known in the art to predict a fracture size and a fracture growth direction based on fracture with measurements and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the distance in such a manner.
With respect to claims 15-18, although Hill does not explicitly discuss the claimed calculations, these are all known calculations to be made in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate any or all of these values using the measured information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,275,041; US 9,976,351; US 10,711,577; WO 2025/111088; and US 2025/0206538 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
