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.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson et al (U.S Patent 9,695,353) (“Nelson”).
Regarding Claim 12, Nelson discloses a method for hydraulic fracturing of a subsurface formation (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-63 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses hydraulic fracturing operations), comprising:
preparing a foam fluid comprising a liquid phase and a gas phase (Abstract; Col 7, lines 57-67 and Col 8, lines 6-11 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses a foamed fracturing fluid comprising a liquid phase (e.g, the polymer, foaming agent and carrier fluid) and a gas phase), wherein:
the liquid phase comprises a foaming surfactant (Col 7, lines 12-49 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses a foaming agent such as a surfactant) and a branched synthetic polymer (Col 1, lines 54-59; Col 2, lines 40-62; Col 3, lines 17-28; Col 7, lines 56-61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the synthetic polymer is soluble in a carrier aqueous fluid) and a branched synthetic polymer comprising monomers including at least one of of acrylamide, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, or 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid (Abstract; Col 1, lines 54-59; Col 2, lines 40-62; Col 3, lines 17-28 and lines 55-67; Col 4, lines 1-61; Col 7, lines 56-61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the synthetic polymer is soluble in a carrier aqueous fluid and comprises methacrylic acid, acrylamide); and
the gas phase comprises CO2 (Col 7, lines 56-65 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a gas constituent comprising carbon dioxide gas); and
injecting the foam fluid into the subsurface formation at a pressure higher than formation pressure to create fractures in the subsurface formation (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-63; Col 7, lines 57-65 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid is injected into the formation to perform hydraulic fracturing operations).
Regarding Claim 13, Nelson discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the branched synthetic polymer is internally crosslinked with functional groups including ammonium (Abstract; Col 9, lines 10-36 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprising the synthetic polymer is crosslinkable with a crosslinking agent comprising metals such as ammonium).
Regarding Claim 14, Nelson discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the liquid phase further comprises a clay stabilizer (Col 11, lines 21-29 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises additives such as clay stabilizers).
Regarding Claim 16, Nelson discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a foam quality of the foam fluid is from about 54% to about 74% (Abstract; Col 8, lines 5-35 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the fracturing fluid is a foam comprising a foam quality from about 52% to about 90%).
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 1-8, 10-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al (U.S Patent 9,695,353) (“Nelson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nelson discloses a two-phase liquid-gas fluid for hydraulic fracturing (Abstract; Col 7, lines 57-67 and Col 8, lines 6-11 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses a foamed fracturing fluid comprising a liquid phase (e.g, the polymer, foaming agent and carrier fluid) and a gas phase), comprising:
a liquid phase comprising a foaming surfactant (Col 7, lines 12-49 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses a foaming agent such as a surfactant) and a branched synthetic polymer (Col 1, lines 54-59; Col 2, lines 40-62; Col 3, lines 17-28; Col 7, lines 56-61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the synthetic polymer is soluble in a carrier aqueous fluid), wherein the branched synthetic polymer comprises monomers including at least one of acrylamide, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, or 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid (Abstract; Col 3, lines 55-67 and Col 4, lines 1-61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the synthetic polymer comprises methacrylic acid, acrylamide); and
a gas phase comprising CO2 (Col 7, lines 56-65 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a gas constituent comprising carbon dioxide gas), wherein the two-phase liquid-gas fluid is configured to maintain a viscosity of at least 70 cp (Abstract; Col 9, lines 37-41 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses a wide range of viscosities for the foamed fracturing fluid). Although silent to “wherein the two-phase liquid-gas fluid is configured to maintain a viscosity of at least 70cp after exposure to temperatures of 200℉ to 300℉ for at least 90 minutes,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the two-phase liquid-gas fluid to maintain the viscosity of at least 70cp after exposure to the temperatures for the specified duration as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 1, wherein the branched synthetic polymer is internally crosslinked with functional groups including ammonium (Abstract; Col 9, lines 10-36 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprising the synthetic polymer is crosslinkable with a crosslinking agent comprising metals such as ammonium).
Regarding Claim 3, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 1, wherein the branched synthetic polymer has a specific weight concentration (Abstract; Col 5, lines 39-51 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the branched synthetic polymer has a specific molecular weight concentration). Although silent to wherein the branched synthetic polymer has a concentration “from about 10 ppt to about 200 ppt,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the branched synthetic polymer concentration as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
Regarding Claim 4, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 3, wherein the branched synthetic polymer has a specific weight concentration (Abstract; Col 5, lines 39-51 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the branched synthetic polymer has a specific molecular weight concentration). Although silent to wherein the branched synthetic polymer has a concentration “between about 40 ppt and about 45 ppt,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the branched synthetic polymer concentration as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
Regarding Claim 5, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 1, wherein the foaming surfactant has a specific concentration (Col 7, lines 12-56 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a foaming agent such as a surfactant at a specific weight concentration). Although silent to wherein the foaming surfactant has “a concentration up to about 60 gpt,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the foamed surfactant concentration as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 1, wherein the foaming surfactant comprises a betaine group (Col 7, lines 12-56 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a foaming agent such as a surfactant. Examples of these surfactants comprise alkyl betaines, alkylamido propyl betaines, coco betaine).
Regarding Claim 7, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 6, wherein the foaming surfactant comprises at least one of: an alkylamido betaine; an alkylamido sultaine; an alkyl polyglycolide; an amine oxide; a quaternary amine; an alkyl ether sulfate; an alkylarylsulfonate; an ethoxylated long chain alcohol; an alkyl sulfate; a sulfosuccinate; a sodium lauryl sulfoacetate; or a sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate (Col 7, lines 12-56 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a foaming agent such as a surfactant. Examples of these surfactants comprise alkyl betaines, alkylamido propyl betaines, coco betaine, ethoxylated sulfate, alkyl sulfates, etc).
Regarding Claim 8, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 1, wherein the liquid phase further comprises a clay stabilizer (Col 11, lines 21-29 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises additives such as clay stabilizers).
Regarding Claim 10, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 1, wherein a foam quality of the two-phase liquid-gas fluid is from about 10% to about 75% (Abstract; Col 8, lines 5-35 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the fracturing fluid is a foam comprising a foam quality from about 52% to about 90%).
Regarding Claim 11, Nelson discloses the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 10, wherein the foam quality is from about 54% to about 74% (Abstract; Col 8, lines 5-35 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the fracturing fluid is a foam comprising a foam quality from about 52% to about 90%).
Regarding Claim 17, Nelson discloses a composition for high-temperature hydraulic fracturing (Abstract; Col 2, lines 39-63 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses hydraulic fracturing operations), comprising:
a branched synthetic polymer comprising monomers including at least one of acrylamide, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, or 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid (Abstract; Col 1, lines 54-59; Col 2, lines 40-62; Col 3, lines 17-28 and lines 55-67; Col 4, lines 1-61; Col 7, lines 56-61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the synthetic polymer is soluble in a carrier aqueous fluid and comprises methacrylic acid, acrylamide), wherein the branched synthetic polymer is internally crosslinked with functional groups including ammonium (Abstract; Col 9, lines 10-36 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprising the synthetic polymer is crosslinkable with a crosslinking agent comprising metals such as ammonium); and
a foaming surfactant comprising a betaine group (Col 7, lines 12-56 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a foaming agent such as a surfactant. Examples of these surfactants comprise alkyl betaines, alkylamido propyl betaines, coco betaine). Although silent to “wherein the composition is formulated to maintain thermal stability at temperatures up to 300°F,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the composition to be formulated to maintain thermal stability at the specific temperature range as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
Regarding Claim 18, Nelson discloses the composition of claim 17, wherein the foaming surfactant comprises one or more alkylamido betaines including at least one of cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, cocamidopropyl betaine, erucic amidopropyl dimethyl betaine, erucamidopropyl hydroxypropylsultaine, oleoylamidopropyl dimethyl betaine, or erucamidopropyl hydroxypropylsultaine (Col 7, lines 12-56 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises a foaming agent such as a surfactant. Examples of these surfactants comprise alkyl betaines, alkylamido propyl betaines, coco betaine, ethoxylated sulfate, alkyl sulfates, etc).
Regarding Claim 19, Nelson discloses the composition of claim 17, further comprising a clay stabilizer (Col 11, lines 21-29 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Nelson discloses wherein the foamed fracturing fluid comprises additives such as clay stabilizers).
Claims 9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al (U.S Patent 9,695,353) (“Nelson”) in view of Germack et al (U.S Patent 10,717,919) (“Germack”).
Regarding Claim 9, Nelson fails to expressly disclose the two-phase liquid-gas fluid of claim 8, wherein the clay stabilizer comprises at least one of choline chloride, tetramethylammonium chloride, triethylenetetramine, a polyether amine, or a cationic polymer.
Germack teaches specifically wherein the clay stabilizer comprises at least one of choline chloride, tetramethylammonium chloride, triethylenetetramine, a polyether amine, or a cationic polymer (Abstract; Col 26, lines 9-18; Col 28, lines 60-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Germack teaches wherein the microemulsion and/or emulsion comprises a clay stabilizer in the form of a salt comprising choline chloride) for the purpose of lowering the freezing point of the microemulsion and/or emulsion in order to help improve/increase the hydrocarbon fluid recovery downhole (Col 6, lines 7-19; Col 28, lines 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Nelson to specifically include a clay stabilizer such as choline chloride, as taught by Germack, because doing so would help to lower the freezing point of the microemulsion and/or emulsion in order to improve/increase the hydrocarbon fluid recovery downhole.
Regarding Claim 15, Nelson fails to expressly disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the clay stabilizer comprises choline chloride.
Germack teaches specifically wherein the clay stabilizer comprises choline chloride (Abstract; Col 26, lines 9-18; Col 28, lines 60-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Germack teaches wherein the microemulsion and/or emulsion comprises a clay stabilizer in the form of a salt comprising choline chloride) for the purpose of lowering the freezing point of the microemulsion and/or emulsion in order to help improve/increase the hydrocarbon fluid recovery downhole (Col 6, lines 7-19; Col 28, lines 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Nelson to specifically include a clay stabilizer such as choline chloride, as taught by Germack, because doing so would help to lower the freezing point of the microemulsion and/or emulsion in order to improve/increase the hydrocarbon fluid recovery downhole.
Regarding Claim 20, Nelson fails to expressly disclose the composition of claim 19, wherein the clay stabilizer comprises choline chloride.
Germack teaches specifically wherein the clay stabilizer comprises choline chloride (Abstract; Col 26, lines 9-18; Col 28, lines 60-67 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Germack teaches wherein the microemulsion and/or emulsion comprises a clay stabilizer in the form of a salt comprising choline chloride) for the purpose of lowering the freezing point of the microemulsion and/or emulsion in order to help improve/increase the hydrocarbon fluid recovery downhole (Col 6, lines 7-19; Col 28, lines 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Nelson to specifically include a clay stabilizer such as choline chloride, as taught by Germack, because doing so would help to lower the freezing point of the microemulsion and/or emulsion in order to improve/increase the hydrocarbon fluid recovery downhole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gupta et al (U.S Patent 10,072,478) – discloses methods of treating a subterranean formation comprising a storable aqueous suspension comprising a carrier fluid, a superabsorbent polymer and a proppant for sand control method operations (Abstract).
Lin et al (U.S Patent 8,916,507) – discloses wellbore treatment fluids comprising an aqueous medium, a gas component, a viscosifying agent and a surfactant (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays.
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.
/ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights