Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 has being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 describes an “encrypted well based on a movable region” however, the specification does not define what an encrypted well comprises. Therefore, as the specification does not describe what an encrypted well comprises claim 11 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 11 is rejected on this basis.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 & 10
The metes and bounds of claims 1 & 10 are unclear as the claim language is ambiguous if a simulation of a fracturing operation is occurring, an actual fracturing operation is occurring, or if a simulation fracturing operation is occurring and modifying an actual fracturing operation. It is unclear which limitations are occurring in a simulated environment and which limitations are being implemented physically. For example, S1 states the construction of a fracturing parameter design model, S2 states simulation of a production process based on the model of S1, however, it is unclear if the obtained pressure field of the infill well is from the simulation and model or from an actual wellbore. Therefore, as it is unclear what is considered a simulation of a fracturing operation and what is an actual fracturing operation, the metes and bounds of the claim language is unclear.
Furthermore, the metes and bounds of claims 1 & 10 are ambiguous as it is unclear if the limitations regarding the various fracture classifications are optional or required limitations because the limitation as written “criteria for performing staged fracturing classification..” implies that if Stage I,II,III are not met then the fracturing stages cannot be classified. As the stages described are not fully encompassing all possibilities the claim language is indefinite when the criteria is not met.
Furthermore, the metes and bounds of the limitations regarding the “designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters” are ambiguous. As cited below as being an abstract idea under 35 USC 101, the various modifications to the differentiated fracturing operation parameters are broadly recited in relative terms. For class I, III fracture stages, the terms “maximize a stimulated reservoir volume & fracture containment” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximize a stimulated reservoir volume & fracture containment” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims do not define what is fully considered maximizing or containing and renders the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite.
Continuing from “designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters” stage II is indefinite as it is not defined what “designating the differentiated fracturing operation parameters in combination with temporary plugging” fully encompasses. The claim language does not define what the temporary plugging is used in combination with or how the differentiated fracturing operation parameters are defined specifically. The claims do not define what is being used in combination and how the temporary plugging is used in combination and renders the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite.
Claims 1 & 10 are rejected on this basis.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claims 11-12 incorporate the limitations from claim 1 and are similarly rejected on the basis of claim 1.
Claims 1-12
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. While the examiner has attempted to fully list all present 35 USC 112 issues, the current rejections under 35 USC 112 is non-exhaustive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 10-12 are directed to a method (process) and systems (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations including:
Claim 1:
S1: constructing a fracturing parameter design model;
S2: simulating a production process of an implemented well pattern based on the fracturing parameter design model of the infill well, and obtaining a pressure field of the infill well before fracturing;
S3: performing four-dimensional stress dynamics calculation…based on the pressure field to obtain a stress evolution result, and updating relevant geological parameters in the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well according to the stress evolution result;
S4: identifying an area of a recoverable region of the infill well in an updated fracturing parameter design model; and
S5: performing staged fracturing classification…designing differentiated fracturing operation parameters for classified multi-stage fractures;
wherein criteria for performing staged fracturing classification for the infill well are as follows:
a fracture stage is classified as Class I fracture stage when: a total recoverable length on both sides of a horizontal fracture stage is larger than or equal to 0.5 times a parent well spacing, and distances from the both sides of the horizontal fracture stage to a boundary of the recoverable region are each larger than or equal to 0.9 times a well spacing;
a fracture stage is classified as Class II fracture stage when: a total recoverable length on both sides of a horizontal fracture stage is larger than or equal to 0.5 times the parent well spacing, and distances from the both sides of the horizontal fracture stage to the boundary of the recoverable region are each larger than or equal to 0.1 times the well spacing;
a fracture stage is classified as Class III fracture stage when: a total recoverable length on both sides of a horizontal fracture stage is less than 0.5 times the parent well spacing, and distances from the both sides of the horizontal fracture stage to the boundary of the recoverable region are each larger than or equal to 0.1 times the well spacing;
for Class I fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters to maximize a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV);
for Class II fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters in combination with temporary plugging; and
for Class III fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters primarily for fracture containment.
Claim 5: identifying depleted boundaries of two nearest parent wells relative to the infill well using a pressure depletion threshold; a region between the depleted boundaries of the two parent wells being an undepleted region; and calculating the area of the recoverable region of the infill well based on the undepleted region.
Claim 6: determining a confidence map of the target block based on current wellbore data, historical wellbore data, a natural fracture model, a reservoir property model, and a geomechanical model; and determining, based on the confidence map, the recoverable region of the infill well and the area of the recoverable region of the infill well.
Claim 7: determining a production difficulty based on the historical wellbore data, the natural fracture model, the reservoir property model, and the geomechanical model; determining a confidence threshold based on the production difficulty; and determining the recoverable region of the infill well and the area of the recoverable region of the infill well based on the confidence threshold and the confidence map.
Claim 9: assessing a fracture containment risk based on the operation monitoring data and a fracture stage type; generating an adjustment instruction based on the adjusted fracturing operation parameters;
Claim 10:
a model construction module configured to construct a fracturing parameter design model for…in a target block;
a production process simulation module configured to simulate a production process of an implemented well pattern based on the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well, and obtain a pressure field of the infill well before fracturing;
a four-dimensional stress dynamics calculation module configured to perform four-dimensional stress dynamics calculation during a hydrocarbon reservoir production process based on the pressure field to obtain a stress evolution result, and update relevant geological parameters in the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well according to the stress evolution result;
an area calculation module configured to identify an area of a recoverable region of the infill well in an updated fracturing parameter design model; and
a fracturing operation parameter design module configured to perform staged fracturing classification for the infill well based on the area of the recoverable region, and design differentiated fracturing operation parameters for classified multi-stage fractures; wherein
criteria for performing staged fracturing classification for the infill well are as follows:
a fracture stage is classified as Class I fracture stage when: a total recoverable length on both sides of a horizontal fracture stage is larger than or equal to 0.5 times a parent well spacing, and distances from the both sides of the horizontal fracture stage to a boundary of the recoverable region are each larger than or equal to 0.9 times a well spacing;
a fracture stage is classified as Class II fracture stage when: a total recoverable length on both sides of a horizontal fracture stage is larger than or equal to 0.5 times the parent well spacing, and distances from the both sides of the horizontal fracture stage to the boundary of the recoverable region are each larger than or equal to 0.1 times the well spacing;
a fracture stage is classified as Class III fracture stage when: a total recoverable length on both sides of a horizontal fracture stage is less than 0.5 times the parent well spacing, and distances from the both sides of the horizontal fracture stage to the boundary of the recoverable region are each larger than or equal to 0.1 times the well spacing;
when designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters for the classified multi-stage fractures,
for Class I fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters to maximize a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV);
for Class II fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters in combination with temporary plugging; and
for Class III fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters primarily for fracture containment.
Claims 11 & 12 incorporate the abstract limitations of claim 1.
These limitations, as drafted, are abstract mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8, 15 recites the additional element of:
Claim 1:
An infill well; a hydrocarbon reservoir production process which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use;
Claim 9:
A fracturing operation; which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use;
Obtaining operation monitoring data via a sensing device…; transmitting the adjustment instruction… which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity;
Issuing an alarm…; adjusting the fracturing operation parameters for a subsequent fracture stage…; regulate a pumping rate, a pipeline switch valve assembly to control an opening percentage, and a temporary plugging agent injection device to adjust a temporary plugging agent dosage amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim 10:
An infill well; a hydrocarbon reservoir production process which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use;
Claim 11:
An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
Claim 12:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium; a processor which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 1:
With respect, An infill well; a hydrocarbon reservoir production process merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)).
Claim 9:
With respect, A fracturing operation merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)).
As discussed above, Obtaining operation monitoring data…; transmitting the adjustment instruction… step is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitations do not amount to more than mere data gathering. Given the generality of the data acquisition, and the type of data collected, these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. And buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered insignificant extra solution activity
Additionally, a sensing device is recited at a high level of generality. Given the generality of the positioning of the sensors, the type of sensor, and the type of data collected by the sensors, these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the recited process in the Issuing an alarm…; adjusting the fracturing operation parameters for a subsequent fracture stage…; regulate a pumping rate, a pipeline switch valve assembly to control an opening percentage, and a temporary plugging agent injection device to adjust a temporary plugging agent dosage which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to any possible outcome being considered an appropriate action which is a form of insignificant extra-solution action and does not explicitly disclose an appropriate action in the operation of the wellbore (e.g., a practical application). As such, the foregoing additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
Claim 10:
With respect, An infill well; a hydrocarbon reservoir production process merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)).
Claim 11:
With respect An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor these elements are recited at a high level of generality such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose that these elements are anything other than a generic device, memory and processor (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claim 12:
With respect A non-transitory computer readable storage medium; a processor these elements are recited at a high level of generality such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose that these elements are anything other than a generic device, memory and processor (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the claims does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics of claims 2-4, merely narrow the recitation of the specific variables and data limitations are insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas," (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Similar to claim 1, 8 and 15 this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahkarami (US Pub No 202320220846).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 1. A method for fracturing design of an infill well based on a recoverable region, comprising:
S1: constructing a fracturing parameter design model for an infill well in a target block (Shahkarami abstract [0025] [0036] construction of the analysis model to adjust and optimize operation of offset wells (infill) based on actual or predicted Fracture driven interference events);
S2: simulating a production process of an implemented well pattern based on the fracturing parameter design model of the infill well (Shahkarami Fig 4; 406, 408, 410, 412 simulation of the well production based on the well design), and obtaining a pressure field of the infill well before fracturing (Shahkarami Fig 1; 108 [0016] each well has multiple pressure sensors);
S3: performing four-dimensional stress dynamics calculation (Shahkarami Fig 3; 304 [0026] stress analysis) during a hydrocarbon reservoir production process based on the pressure field to obtain a stress evolution result (Shahkarami Fig 2; 202 live field data [0026]-[0027] to determine stress within the reservoir during fracture operations), and updating relevant geological parameters in the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well according to the stress evolution result (Shahkarami Fig 3; [0030] modification of the fracturing operations, future stages, and simulation and predictions based on the results of a current fracturing operations, current stages, to the geologic area to manage fracture driven interference events);
S4: identifying an area of a recoverable region of the infill well in an updated fracturing parameter design model (Shahkarami [0026] [0028] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans); and
S5: performing staged fracturing classification for the infill well based on the area of the recoverable region, and designing differentiated fracturing operation parameters for classified multi-stage fractures (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as determination of a FDI would be beneficial to stimulation of offset wells);
wherein criteria for performing staged fracturing classification for the infill well are as follows:
With respect to the limitations in claim 1 regarding the classification of fractures, Shahkarami et al. discloses that the horizontal fractures can be controlled based on desired out comes, but is silent as to the length and width of the fractures compared relatively to the parent wells. Shahkarami teaches that fracturing operations may want to allow larger or smaller fracture lengths for a variety of purposes including preventing or establishing communication between wells ([0004] and [0016]). As shown in Shahkarami, the length and width of the fractures compared relatively to the parent wells is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the width and length effects the ability to preventing or establishing communication between wells. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Shahkarami et al. to have a width and length within the claimed ranges, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shahkarami et al. by making the width and length of the fractures as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
when designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters for the classified multi-stage fractures, for Class I fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters to maximize a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as determination of a FDI would be beneficial to stimulation of offset wells);
for Class II fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters in combination with temporary plugging (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as defensive operations, as shutting in a well, to prevent a FDI); and
for Class III fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters primarily for fracture containment (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as defensive operations, to prevent a FDI).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein in S1, the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well includes a reservoir property model (Shahkarami [0026] [0028] reservoir properties such as porosity and depth), a geomechanical model (Shahkarami [0026] [0028] well depletion and stress), a natural fracture model (Shahkarami [0026]-[0028] reservoir properties combined with historical data acquired by tracer fluid mechanisms, pressure response analysis and production response analysis gives data relating to off set well communication and present well communication), and a parent well pattern model (Shahkarami Fig 1 [0026] [0028] well construction, distance between wells).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the reservoir property model includes porosity, permeability, and saturation (Shahkarami [0026] [0028] reservoir properties such as porosity and depth); the geomechanical model includes Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, triaxial principal stresses, stress orientation, and pore pressure (Shahkarami [0026] [0028] well depletion and stress); the natural fracture model includes fracture distribution, fracture dimension, and fracture orientation (Shahkarami [0026]-[0028] reservoir properties combined with historical data acquired by tracer fluid mechanisms, pressure response analysis and production response analysis gives data relating to off set well communication and present well communication); and the parent well pattern model includes parent well trajectories and simulated fracture network results (Shahkarami Fig 1 [0026] [0028] well construction, distance between wells).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein S2 further includes: obtaining historical production data of the implemented well pattern (Shahkarami Fig 3; 302 [0026] historical data relevant to the offset wells and active wells); calibrating a simulated production process using the historical production data to obtain a calibration result (Shahkarami Fig 3; [0027] using historical data, features and parameters to find correlations and analysis of the well system); and adjusting the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well based on the calibration result (Shahkarami Fig 3; [0027]-[0028] using historical data, features and parameters to find correlations and analysis of the well system to modify the fracturing model based on the data provided).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein S4 further includes: identifying depleted boundaries of two nearest parent wells relative to the infill well using a pressure depletion threshold (Shahkarami [0028] determining a depletion history of the wells and well depletion and stress to build and determine the most profitable completion strategy in the well system); a region between the depleted boundaries of the two parent wells being an undepleted region (Shahkarami [0028] determining a depletion history of the wells and well depletion and stress to build and determine the most profitable completion strategy in the well system; and calculating the area of the recoverable region of the infill well based on the undepleted region (Shahkarami [0026]-[0028] determining a depletion history of the wells and well depletion and stress to build and determine the most profitable completion strategy in the well system).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the identifying an area of a recoverable region of the infill well in an updated fracturing parameter design model further includes: determining a confidence map of the target block based on current wellbore data, historical wellbore data, a natural fracture model, a reservoir property model, and a geomechanical model (Shahkarami fig 4 [0033] the model comprising the data developed and analyzed in [0026]-[0029] determines the various risk-weighted costs in the decision making of the well system); and determining, based on the confidence map, the recoverable region of the infill well and the area of the recoverable region of the infill well (Shahkarami fig 4 [0033] the model comprising the data developed and analyzed in [0026]-[0029] determines the various risk-weighted costs in the decision making of the well system to modification of the recoverable region of the well system based on production forecasts).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 7. The method according to claim 6, comprising: determining a production difficulty based on the historical wellbore data, the natural fracture model, the reservoir property model, and the geomechanical model (Shahkarami fig 4 [0033] the model comprising the data developed and analyzed in [0026]-[0029] determines the various risk-weighted costs in the decision making of the well system to modification of the recoverable region of the well system based on production forecasts); determining a confidence threshold based on the production difficulty (Shahkarami fig 4 [0033] the model comprising the data developed and analyzed in [0026]-[0029] determines the various risk-weighted costs in the decision making of the well system to modification of the recoverable region of the well system based on production forecasts); and determining the recoverable region of the infill well and the area of the recoverable region of the infill well based on the confidence threshold and the confidence map (Shahkarami fig 4 [0033] the model comprising the data developed and analyzed in [0026]-[0029] determines the various risk-weighted costs in the decision making of the well system to modification of the recoverable region of the well system based on production forecasts).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 9. The method according to claim 1, comprising: obtaining operation monitoring data via a sensing device (Shahkarami fig 1; 108 pressure sensors) during a fracturing operation (Shahkarami [0016] [0017]pressure monitored during fracturing operations); assessing a fracture containment risk based on the operation monitoring data and a fracture stage type (Shahkarami [0024] analysis module to determine and detect FDI events based on pressure anomalies); and in response to the fracture containment risk meeting a risk condition, issuing an alarm (Shahkrami Fig 4; [0031]-[0034] flow chart of the automatic control of the offset wells, at position 412 the determination of well defense procedures is alerted and implemented), and adjusting the fracturing operation parameters for a subsequent fracture stage by: generating an adjustment instruction based on the adjusted fracturing operation parameters (Shahkrami Fig 5 following from 416; applying defense measures 508); and transmitting the adjustment instruction to a fracturing pump truck to regulate a pumping rate (Shahkrami [0004] [00016] control of pumping pressure into the well to inject fluids to intervene in the well system of Fig 1), a pipeline switch valve assembly to control an opening percentage (Shahkrami [0016] control of valves and chokes to control the well), and a temporary plugging agent injection device to adjust a temporary plugging agent dosage (Shahkrami [0004] [0016] control of injecting fluids to control the well and shutting the well in).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 10. A system for fracturing design of an infill well based on a recoverable region, comprising:
a model construction module configured to construct a fracturing parameter design model for an infill well in a target block (Shahkarami abstract [0025] [0036] construction of the analysis model to adjust and optimize operation of offset wells (infill) based on actual or predicted Fracture driven interference events);
a production process simulation module configured to simulate a production process of an implemented well pattern based on the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well (Shahkarami Fig 4; 406, 408, 410, 412 simulation of the well production based on the well design), and obtain a pressure field of the infill well before fracturing (Shahkarami Fig 1; 108 [0016] each well has multiple pressure sensors);
a four-dimensional stress dynamics calculation module configured to perform four-dimensional stress dynamics calculation (Shahkarami Fig 3; 304 [0026] stress analysis) during a hydrocarbon reservoir production process based on the pressure field to obtain a stress evolution result (Shahkarami Fig 2; 202 live field data [0026]-[0027] to determine stress within the reservoir during fracture operations), and update relevant geological parameters in the fracturing parameter design model for the infill well according to the stress evolution result (Shahkarami Fig 3; [0030] modification of the fracturing operations, future stages, and simulation and predictions based on the results of a current fracturing operations, current stages, to the geologic area to manage fracture driven interference events);
an area calculation module configured to identify an area of a recoverable region of the infill well in an updated fracturing parameter design model (Shahkarmai [[0026] [0028] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans); and
a fracturing operation parameter design module configured to perform staged fracturing classification for the infill well based on the area of the recoverable region, and design differentiated fracturing operation parameters for classified multi-stage fractures (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as determination of a FDI would be beneficial to stimulation of offset wells);
wherein criteria for performing staged fracturing classification for the infill well are as follows:
With respect to the limitations in claim 10 regarding the classification of fractures, Shahkarami et al. discloses that the horizontal fractures can be controlled based on desired out comes, but is silent as to the length and width of the fractures compared relatively to the parent wells. Shahkarami teaches that fracturing operations may want to allow larger or smaller fracture lengths for a variety of purposes including preventing or establishing communication between wells ([0004] and [0016]). As shown in Shahkarami, the length and width of the fractures compared relatively to the parent wells is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the width and length effects the ability to preventing or establishing communication between wells. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Shahkarami et al. to have a width and length within the claimed ranges, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shahkarami et al. by making the width and length of the fractures as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
when designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters for the classified multi-stage fractures, for
Class I fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters to maximize a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as determination of a FDI would be beneficial to stimulation of offset wells); for
Class II fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters in combination with temporary plugging (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as defensive operations, as shutting in a well, to prevent a FDI); and for
Class III fracture stages, designing the differentiated fracturing operation parameters primarily for fracture containment (Shahkarami [0026]-[0029] identification of well characteristics, reservoir quality, depletion history to identify recoverable stage regions in the wellbore to update fracturing plans and designation of different operations for specific stages to optimize production in the well system, such as defensive operations, to prevent a FDI).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 11. An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store computer programs, the processor runs the computer programs to cause the electronic device to implement the method for fracturing design (Shahkarami Fig 1; 122 [0019]-[0020] computers comprising processors and memory are in communication with the analysis module which can be hosted via cloud computing or via local control) of an encrypted well based on a movable region according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Shahkarami disclsoses in claim 12. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer programs, wherein the computer programs are executed by a processor (Shahkarami Fig 1; 122 [0019]-[0020] computers comprising processors and memory are in communication with the analysis module which can be hosted via cloud computing or via local control) to implement the method for fracturing design of an infill well based on a recoverable region according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights