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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains improper language in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-18) in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Regarding Group I vs. Group II: the traversal is on the ground(s) that “[a]lthough the claims might technically be in different classifications, the presence of overlapping elements should minimize the burden of performing a search that would encompass both of the claim groups” (See Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/09/2025: p. 7). The Examiner notes that the well in Group II could be used in materially different methods (e.g., internal pressure fluctuations, bending moments, axial forces, sea currents, flow-induced vibration (FIV), impact forces, accidental blasts)1. However, the Examiner agrees that Group I and Group II contain substantially similar overlapping elements; thus, the restriction requirement, mailed October 16, 2025, is partially withdrawn, because Group II requires all of the substantive limitations of Group I. The Examiner notes that Group II should be amended throughout prosecution to mirror the embodiment of Group I to avoid a subsequent requirement for restriction.
Regarding Groups I-II vs. Group III: the traversal is on the ground(s) that the extra element of “characterizing the hydraulic fractures created using the pressure pumping and proppant placement based on the wellbore response” does not place an undue burden on the Examiner (See Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/09/2025: p. 8). This is not found persuasive. First, Groups I-II do not necessarily require pressure pumping or proppant placement to generate hydraulic fracture. Second, Group III does not require applying a dynamic load to primary fractures to generate secondary fractures; and/or extracting hydrocarbons from the wellbore via secondary fractures. The Examiner maintains that the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A – Species D in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Regarding Species A: the original disclosure recites the species within claims that are not dependent on one another or obvious variants. Moreover, the Examiner maintains that the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Regarding Species B – Species C: the Applicant’s original disclosure states that “the dynamic loading can be implemented using various methods, including pulse-generating devices (1-10 kHz) such as electrohydraulic fracturing, engineered devices like mechanically controlled flaps in the wellbore (0.01-10 Hz), chemical methods such as solid propellants and exothermic chemical reactions (0.01 - 100 Hz), proppant slugging, gas-liquid mixtures and/or controlled flow-rate changes in surface operations” (See Applicant’s Specification, filed 05/22/2025: [0045]). The original disclosure further states that “[a]nother aspect of the present disclosure includes using the wellbore response to dynamic loading to characterize the volume of hydraulic fractures created during conventional pressure pumping and proppant placement” (See Applicant’s Specification, filed 05/22/2025: [0046]). The species are disclosed in distinct embodiments. Moreover, the Examiner maintains that the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-4, 8-13, and 17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species D in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Regarding Species D: the Examiner finds that the species contain substantially similar overlapping elements; thus, the species requirement, mailed October 16, 2025, is partially withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 18 recites the limitation “using a wellbore response to dynamic loading to characterize a volume of hydraulic fractures created during conventional pressure pumping and proppant placement” in lines 1-3.
Claim 18 recites “using a wellbore response to dynamic loading” without positively reciting a method step with the term “dynamic loading” in the claims. It is also unclear whether “dynamic loading” is referencing “applying a dynamic load” within independent Claim 1 since there is no terminology linking the two method steps for antecedent basis purposes. Moreover, it is unclear what type of response is required by the wellbore to meet the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites “to characterize a volume of hydraulic fractures created during conventional pressure pumping and proppant placement” without positively reciting a method step of conventional pressure pumping and proppant placement. It is also unclear whether “a volume of hydraulic fractures” is referencing “primary fractures” and/or “secondary fractures” within independent Claim 1 since there is no terminology linking the two method steps for antecedent basis purposes. Moreover, it is unclear how the fractures are being characterized since the “wellbore response” is undefined, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pavlich (US 4,078,609).
Claim 1. Pavlich discloses A method for hydraulic fracturing (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 6-13 “This invention relates to a method of hydraulically fracturing a subterranean formation, particularly a hydrocarbon bearing formation though equally applicable to water or steam bearing formations, penetrated by a borehole, and more particularly relates to a method of hydraulic fracturing wherein fluids are injected in a series of stages to create multiple fractures.”), comprising:
applying a dynamic load via a wellbore to primary fractures (Col. 5, lines 35-41 “The formation contains an initial fracture which may be preexisting, e.g. a natural fracture or a fracture created during an earlier fracturing treatment, or, as shown in FIG. 1, a fracture 9 may be initiated as a preliminary step by injection of a formation-compatible conventional fracturing fluid 10 at a rate and pressure sufficient to initiate the fracture.”) in a reservoir to generate secondary fractures along the primary fractures (Fig. 7; Col. 5, lines 55-60 “After a fracture 9 has been initiated, a preselected volume of viscous non-Newtonian fluid 11-1 containing substantially no solids is injected at a rate calculated to widen the fracture sufficiently to accept solid particles of propping agents, and extend the fracture a preselected distance”; Col. 6, lines 39-48 “…the proppant is believed to function not only as a proppant in the conventional sense of keeping the fracture open when production is resumed, but also as a barrier to further propagation of the fracture at the extremities, which, during the subsequent steps of the invention, are believed to cause multiple secondary fractures to occur in communication with the main fracture plane, as illustrated in FIGS. 14 through 18.”); and
extracting hydrocarbons from the wellbore via the secondary fractures in the reservoir (Col. 7, line 64 – Col. 8, line 3 “As subsequent stages of the treatment are carried out, therefore, secondary fractures are created in communication with the main fracture resulting in a higher sustained productivity of formation fluids”).
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 111827954 A).
Claim 1. Liu discloses A method for hydraulic fracturing (Abstract; Summary of the Invention “continuous-pulse hydraulic fracturing method”), comprising:
applying a dynamic load via a wellbore to primary fractures in a reservoir to generate secondary fractures along the primary fractures (Figs. 5, 6A-8B; Summary of the Invention: “The high-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into the formation in the form of continuous pulses (in the form of continuous pulsed shock waves) to form main fractures; secondary micro-cracks), forming a network of cracks”; “in the continuous pulse hydraulic fracturing method, firstly, the high-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into the formation in the form of continuous pulses (the form of continuous pulse shock waves) to form main fractures; and then the main fractures are formed in the form of continuous pulses … The low-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into the formation to communicate the micro-fractures around the main fracture (secondary micro-fractures) to form a fracture network”); and
extracting hydrocarbons from the wellbore via the secondary fractures in the reservoir (Figs. 1, 5; “The fracture network system (the schematic diagram of the fracture network system is shown in Figure 5) fully improves the fracture conductivity and increases the reservoir recovery”).
Claim 2. Liu discloses The method of claim 1, comprising generating the primary fractures along an entire length of the wellbore (Fig. 3).
Claim 5. Liu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic load is generated using a pulse-generating device to oscillate pressure in the wellbore (1 “frequency-adjustable hydraulic continuous pulse device”).
Claim 6. Liu discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the pulse-generating device comprises an electrohydraulic fracturing device (“high-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into the formation in the form of continuous pulses (in the form of continuous pulsed shock waves) to form main fractures; secondary micro-cracks), forming a network of cracks”).
Claim 15. Liu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein an amplitude of the applied dynamic load is within a range of 0.1 to 100 megaPascals (MPa) (“in the continuous pulse hydraulic fracturing method, preferably, the peak intensity of the continuous pulse is 20-80 MPa.”).
Claim 19. Liu discloses A well, comprising: a wellbore (6 “oil pipe”) within a reservoir (“formation”) comprising a plurality of primary hydraulic fractures (Fig. 1); and a dynamic loading device (1 “frequency-adjustable hydraulic continuous pulse device”) to generate secondary hydraulic fractures in the reservoir by applying a dynamic load to the primary fractures via the wellbore (“high-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into a formation in a continuous pulse manner, so that a main fracture is formed, then low-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into the formation in a continuous pulse manner, micro-fractures around the main fracture are made to communicate, and then a fracture network is formed”).
Claim 20. Liu discloses The well of claim 19, wherein the dynamic loading device (1) comprises a pulse-generating device (“frequency-adjustable hydraulic continuous pulse device 1”).
Claim 21. Liu discloses The well of claim 19, wherein the dynamic loading device (1) comprises an electrohydraulic fracturing device (“high-viscosity fracturing fluid is injected into the formation in the form of continuous pulses (in the form of continuous pulsed shock waves) to form main fractures; secondary micro-cracks), forming a network of cracks”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 111827954 A).
Claim 7. Liu discloses The method of claim 5. Regarding the limitation: wherein the pulse-generating device comprises a mechanically controlled flap in the wellbore, Liu discloses that the frequency-adjustable hydraulic continuous pulse device is a conventional device used in the field, such as the device provided in Chinese patent application CN107024393A or CN103196762A; both prior art references describe pulse generation devices incorporating mechanical valve assemblies that may be used to control / regulate the pulse generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a pulse-generating device with a valve assembly as an obvious matter of design choice in order to mechanically control / regulate the pulse generation in Liu.
Claim 14. Liu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the applied dynamic load is within a range of 0.01 to 10 kilohertz (“in the continuous pulse hydraulic fracturing method, preferably, the frequency of the continuous pulse is 0.01-35 Hz”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the frequency range in Liu to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the 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). Moreover, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Claim 16. Liu discloses The method of claim 1. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein a characteristic of the applied dynamic load is based on a length of the wellbore. However, Liu does disclose that a continuous shock wave can be formed by changing the frequency and intensity of the continuous pulse to impact the reservoir, so that the micro-fractures in the reservoir can be opened, and then a complex fracture network is formed; wherein the fracture network system fully improves the fracture conductivity and increases the reservoir recovery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider the length of the wellbore in connection with the targeted zone(s) to optimize the frequency and intensity of the continuous pulse based on choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wheelock et al. (US 2023/0147476) discloses applying a pressure pulse generator (158) within a wellbore (102) positioned in a hydrocarbon well (100) of a formation (106) by generating broadband tube waves within a fluid column of the wellbore using a pressure pulse generator that is hydraulically coupled to the wellbore (Fig. 1A; [0104] – [0110]; [0135]
Dahms (US 2022/0170356) discloses an electrohydraulic fracturing device capable of producing an acoustic shock wave.
Pantsurkin (US 2019/0136121) discloses a method for hydraulic fracturing of a formation penetrated by a wellbore, the method comprising pulse-injecting a proppant-free fracturing fluid and a proppant-laden fracturing fluid into the wellbore.
Barak et al. (US 2019/0032454) discloses a system (10) comprising a well (32) within a mineral stratum (32) and a wave generator (12), wherein as a result of shear strain, the entire rock mass is covered with a uniform network of newly formed fractures, while existing fractures, pores and capillaries grow in size (Fig. 1; [0111]; [0112]; [0113]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
1 See Limam, A., Lee, L.-H., Corona, E., Kyriakides, S., 2008. Plastic buckling and collapse of tubes under bending and internal pressure. International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, pp. 675-683.