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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 6-17, and 20 and species:
(1) a non-ionic primary surfactant;
(2) after a conclusion of the allowing step (c);
(3) monitoring for changes in wellhead or bottom-hole production pressure in the one or more secondary wellbores, and observing an increase in wellhead or bottom-hole production pressure in the one or more secondary wellbores; and
(4) pressure transient analysis
in the reply filed on04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not a concise explanation of the invention but it repeats the claim language.. 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-32 are difficult to read due to light print / size mainly when reduce to print. Furthermore, the labels on graphs are difficult to understand and to follow on the graphs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear what is “allowing the low particle size injection fluid to contact the unconventional subterranean formation for a period of time.” It could be a tool or apparatus, an encapsulated particle, or any other means making the claim indefinite.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 1 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.
The claim 1 recites “… less than 0.1 micrometers”. This is an unbounded upper limit, and as such, it is unclear as to the extent of size Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the invention is intent to work since the size of the low particle size could be non-existent if the size is 0 micrometers.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the water content" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All the claims dependent of claim 7 are also rejected.
Claim 12 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. It is unclear what is “ allowing step (c) facilitate release of hydrocarbons from pores in the unconventional subterranean formation.” It could be a tool or apparatus, an encapsulated particle, or any other means making the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 4, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Walker et al. (US 2020/0317993 A1) (“Walker” herein)
(Claims contain only selected species)
Claim 1.
Walker discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a method for treating an unconventional subterranean formation with a fluid, the method comprising:
(a) combining a single-phase liquid surfactant package comprising a primary surfactant with an aqueous-based injection fluid to form a low particle size injection fluid, wherein the primary surfactant comprises a non-ionic surfactant; [0006, 0008-0010, 0114-0115],
(b) injecting the low particle size injection fluid into a primary wellbore in fluid communication with the unconventional formation; [0107-0109]
(c) allowing the low particle size injection fluid to contact the unconventional subterranean formation for a period of time; [0006, 0009] and
(d) producing fluid from the unconventional subterranean formation through one or more secondary wellbores in fluid communication with the primary wellbore, wherein the low particle size injection fluid has a maximum particle size of less than 0.1 micrometers in diameter in particle size distribution measurements performed at a temperature and salinity of the subterranean formation. [0006, 0009-00010]
Claim 2.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising producing fluid from the unconventional subterranean formation through the primary wellbore after allowing step (c). [0017]
Claim 3.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising ceasing injection of the low particle size injection fluid into the primary wellbore before allowing step (c). [0017]
Claim 4.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising producing fluid from the unconventional subterranean formation through one or more secondary wellbores in fluid communication with the primary wellbore during the injecting step (b), after a conclusion of the allowing step (c). [0006, 0009]
Claim 10.
Walker discloses the e method of claim 1, wherein the period of time is from one day to 60 days. [0017]
Claim 11.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein injecting step (b) comprises injecting the low particle size injection fluid at a pressure and flow rate that docs not substantially initiate new fracture formation within the unconventional subterranean formation. [0015, 0127]
Claim 12.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein injecting step (b) and allowing step (c) facilitate release of hydrocarbons from pores in the unconventional subterranean formation. [0006, 0009]
Claim 13.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein allowing step (c) comprises contacting the unconventional subterranean formation with the low particle size injection fluid for the period of time. [0006, 0009, 0017]
Claim 14.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method improves total hydrocarbon recovery from the primary wellbore and the one or more secondary wellbores. [0129]
Claim 15.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the injection of the low particle size injection fluid stimulates the unconventional subterranean formation. [0127]
Claim 16.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein combination of the single-phase liquid surfactant package with the aqueous-based injection fluid lowers the particle size distribution of the aqueous-based injection fluid when measured at the temperature and salinity of the subterranean formation. [0006, 0009]
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.
Claims 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2006/0144588 A1) (“Ferguson” herein).
Claim 6.
Walker discloses the method of claim 4. Waler however does not explicitly disclose, further comprising monitoring the fluid produced through the one or more secondary wellbores. (Same as claim 7)
Claim 7.
Walker discloses the method of claim 6. Walker however does not explicitly disclose, wherein monitoring the fluid comprises monitoring the water content of the fluid produced through the one or more secondary wellbores,
monitoring for changes in wellhead or bottom-hole production pressure in the one or more secondary wellbores, or any combination thereof.
Ferguson teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0038 → Ferguson teaches this limitation in that the production fluid of an oil well is tested for the presence or absence of a tracer. This test can be useful as a prescreening to determine whether a quantitative analysis is needed. In another embodiment, the test can be done to monitor for water break through in production zone.) for the purpose of using it almost any process wherein materials of interest that are introduced to a wellbore and/or producing formation and wherein it would be desirable to be able to determine the extent that such materials have been recovered. [0057]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Walker with the above limitation, as taught by Ferguson, in order to be desirable to be able to determine the extent that such materials have been recovered.
Claim 8.
Walker discloses the method of claim 7. Walker however does not explicitly disclose, wherein upon observing an increase in the water content of the fluid produced through the one or more secondary wellbore, an increase in a concentration of a component of the low particle size injection fluid in the fluid produced through the one or more secondary wellbores, an increase in emulsion and/or foaming in the fluid produced through the one or more secondary wellbores, an increase in wellhead or bottom-hole production pressure in the one or more secondary wellbores, or any combination thereof during the injecting step (b) or during the allowing step (c), the method further comprises temporarily shutting in the one or more secondary wellbores. (Same as claim 8)
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dale et al. (US 2009/0205819 A1) (“Dale” herein)
Claim 17.
Walker discloses the method of claim 1. Walker however does not explicitly disclose, wherein the method further comprises identifying the one or more secondary wellbores in fluid communication with the primary wellbore.
Dale teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0075 → Dale teaches this limitation in that the coupled physics limit may be utilized to enhance the performance of the well in an efficient manner. For instance, integrated well modeling based on the coupled physics simulation provides reliable predictions, evaluations, and/or optimizations of well performance that are useful in design, evaluation, and characterization of the well. The coupled physics limits provide physics based technical limits that model the well for injection and/or production. For instance, the coupled physics limits are useful in designing well completions, stimulation operations, evaluating well performance based on pressure transient analysis or downhole temperature analysis, combined pressure and temperature data analysis, and/or simulating wells inflow capacity in reservoir simulators using inflow performance models.) for the purpose of providing reliable coupled physics limits for evaluating well performance, or developing a unique set of diagnostic data to identify root cause problems affecting well performance. [0075]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Walker, with the above limitation, as taught by Dale, in order to provide reliable coupled physics limits for evaluating well performance, or developing a unique set of diagnostic data to identify root cause problems affecting well performance.
Claim 20.
Walker discloses the method of claim 17. Walker however does not explicitly disclose, wherein identifying the one or more secondary wellbores in fluid communication with the primary wellbore comprises a pressure transient analysis. (Same as claim 17)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and there is no other rejection pending against the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2017/0158948 A1) . METHODS FOR HYDROCARBON RECOVERY teaches Provided herein are liquid polymer (LP) compositions comprising a synthetic (co)polymer (e.g., an acrylamide (co)polymer), as well as methods for preparing inverted polymer solutions by inverting these LP compositions in an aqueous fluid. The resulting inverted polymer solutions can have a concentration of a synthetic (co)polymer (e.g., an acrylamide (co)polymer) of from 50 to 15,000 ppm, and a filter ratio of 1.5 or less at 15 psi using a 1.2 μm filter. Also provided are methods of using these inverted polymer solutions in oil and gas operations, including enhanced oil recovery, Alexis et al. (US 2019/0233716 A1) Methods For Use In Oil And Gas Operations teaches Disclosed are compositions and methods for use in oil and gas operations, and Morsy et al. (US 2021/002991 A1) Compositions And Methods For Pressure Protection teaches Disclosed are compositions and methods for the pressure protection of existing wells during infill drilling operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 05/05/2026
Prosecution Insights