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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/02/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 01/15/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, along with claims 2-8, dependent therefrom, is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 2 and 5 each recite “the tracer.” Lines 11 and 12 recite “the inert, non-magnetic tracer.” The preamble of the claim also uses the latter phrase of “inert, non-magnetic tracer.” Use of consistent terminology throughout the claim is advised in order to more clearly define that the tracer Applicant disposes in the wellbore and returns with the remnant fluid is indeed the inert, non-magnetic tracer. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 4 and 6 also utilize the phrase “the tracer.” Consistent revision throughout the claim set of claims 1-8 is advised.
Dependent claims 5 and 6 use the phrase “second non-magnetic tracer” and “second tracer” interchangeably; use of consistent phraseology throughout the claims is advised.
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 8 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 8 recites the phrase “and wherein the set of data is obtained by using an artificial intelligence neural network.”
Within the specification as filed, Applicant recites a single instance of an artificial intelligence neural network in [00152] wherein it is disclosed:
Embodiments herein may produce and achieve an extensive and long-term dataset from tracer additives during production flow profile analysis at each target formation. This information may be used together with advanced computational methods using Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) coupled with artificial neural network may provide precise completion optimization workflows for oil and gas wells.
No further mention of an AI neural network is recited nor how it is “used” to obtain the set of data.
The specification discloses no algorithm and/or specific computational methods and/or how the AI neural network is used/coupled therewith.
The sufficiency of the algorithm is determined in view of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as sufficient to define the structure and make the boundaries of the claim understandable. In the instant case the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. For example, mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming and/or computational methods without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., an “AI neural network”), or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Simply reciting “AI neural network” in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure.
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 4 and 13 are each 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. Claims 4 and 13 each provide for the use of a pumpable fluid mixture/a downhole dissolvable tool coupled with a tubestring, a downhole dissolvable device not connected with any tubestring, a perforator tool, and combinations thereof, but since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass by such “using” limitations. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 8 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. Claim 8 provides for the use of an artificial intelligence neural network, but since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claims 16-18 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 16 recites the limitation "the target formation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites “wherein no step of the method uses or is associated with at least one of: a magnet, a magnetic feature, and combinations thereof.” This limitation, however, is previously required by independent claim 16, and, thus fails to further limit the claimed limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 107740690 A – all citations are to the provided translation) in view of Beumer et al. (US 2014/0198898).
With respect to independent claim 1, Zhu et al. discloses a method of using an inert, non-magnetic tracer additive ([p. 2, “1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer; 2) is mixed with water; the mass ratio of solid tracer is mixed with water in step 2)]) in a wellbore, the method comprising:
forming a utility fluid mixture comprising the inert, non-magnetic tracer additive [p. 2, “1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer; 2) is mixed with water; the mass ratio of solid tracer is mixed with water in step 2)];
disposing the tracer into the wellbore so that the tracer comes into contact with a target formation in communication with the wellbore ([p. 5, “injection of tracer according to the following”]);
upon contacting the target formation for an amount of time, returning a remnant fluid that includes at least a portion of the tracer to a surface ([p. 5, “3) sampling..once a day”; claim 7]);
taking a sample of the remnant fluid ([p. 2, 3)…then the monitor sampling]);
providing the sample to a surface facility ([p. 5, “3) sampling..once a day”; claim 7]);
testing the sample at the surface facility to provide a set of data associated with performance of the wellbore ([p. 2, “using said solid tracer emitted bright fluorescence color…it can directly judge the presence of the tracer and for analysis of subsequent monitoring result; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “The invention adopts” and tracer output situation analysis is disclosed]; p. 2, “The invention uses tracer monitoring…realizes the tracer monitoring by the data to the visualization and improves the reliability of tracer technology, breaks through the tracer monitoring with no crack in the reservoir; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “As shown in Fig. 1,” wherein displacement is adjustable; p. 6, “The method of the invention to obtain the crack opening data base matched with the data”]);
wherein the inert, non-magnetic tracer additive has a first tracer composition ([p. 2, 1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer]), and
wherein the inert, non-magnetic tracer additive is in a solid powder form having an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 µm to 1 µm ([p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter]).
With regard to the particle diameters, the Examiner notes, Zhu et al. discloses a tracer particle size of 1-10 microns [p. 5] and thereby overlapping the range instantly disclosed by Applicant in the specification as filed at [0024] as suitable. Although the specification further states that average particle size may be 0.1 to less than 1 micron, given the absence of evidence of the criticality of such a particle size range for the tracer, it is the position of the Office that the instantly claimed range for the particle diameter would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Zhu since 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). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”) The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed average particle diameters as critical; the specification, rather, recites a range of 0.1-10 microns, and, alternative, 0.1 to less than 1 micron, without indicating any criticality therefor and/or unexpected results attainable therewith. Since the tracers of Zhu et al. are suggested as suitable for use in a wellbore to determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using a tracer additive having an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 microns to less than 1 micron as claimed, and as such, the determination of optimal size range therefor, when Zhu et al. discloses a size of 1 micron may be used, would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Zhu et al. discloses wherein the testing the sample step comprises using a fluorescence-response based analysis [p. 2, “using said solid tracer emitted bright fluorescence color…it can directly judge the presence of the tracer and for analysis of subsequent monitoring result; p. 4, paragraphs beginning with “The invention adopts” and “Solid tracer selected”]. The reference, however, fails to disclose wherein at the surface facility wherein such a sample is tested, the method includes EDXRF in order to analyze the remnant fluid via energy excitation at a sub-atomic level in order to provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid as claimed.
Beumer et al. teaches monitoring of crude oil containing fluids at the surface (abstract) wherein measurements used for such samples can be made by UV fluorescent technology or x-ray fluorescent technology ([0027]); UVF methods are suggested as operator and maintenance intensive ([0027]) while EDXFR is suggested as a suitable alternative thereto, wherein the remnant crude oil containing fluid can be subjected to energy excitation that excites a broad range of target elements in the sample which can be used to detect an elemental composition of the remnant fluid ([0032]).
Since Beumer et al. suggests EDXRF as an alternative to UV methods, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try an EDXRF method as claimed and suggested by Beumer et al. in order to provide a less operator and maintenance intensive method that can analyze the elemental composition of the remnant fluid of Zhu et al. and thereby determine the presence and absence of the elemental composition, i.e., tracer, therein.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Zhu et al. discloses wherein prior to testing the sample, the sample is filtered (p. 5, bottom, wherein oil-water separation, i.e., filtering, is conducted – p. 6, top, wherein the sample is tested). Alternatively, Beumer et al. teaches wherein prior to testing the sample is filtered for the purpose of optimizing the system ([0036]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to filter the sample prior to testing in order to optimize the analysis thereof.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Zhu et al. discloses wherein the set of data is used to provide a visual indicator related to at least one of completion quality, reservoir quality, and combinations thereof (Abstract, wherein “tracer monitoring data to the visualization…” is disclosed; p. 4, wherein “in the reservoir for subsequent profile or driving provides more reliable parameters and improve profile control or driving adjusting success rate” is disclosed; see also Fig. 2).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Zhu et al. discloses wherein disposing the tracer into the wellbore further comprises using at least one as claimed ([p. 2, “1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer; 2) is mixed with water; the mass ratio of solid tracer is mixed with water in step 2)]; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “As shown in FIG. 1” wherein injection pump 3 is disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 5, Zhu et al. suggests the method further comprising from the same wellbore, disposing a second non-magnetic tracer additive into the wellbore so that the second tracer additive comes into contact with formation ([p. 2, wherein at “1)” Zhu et al. discloses selecting fluorescent solid particles, thereby suggesting a second tracer additive]); the reference further suggests wherein in such a method is conducted for micro-crack studies, wherein such a crack is distributed between 1-10 microns, 10-20 microns and 20-30 microns (p. 6), i.e., a second and third “stages” of the wellbore. As such, by provision of a second tracer to the wellbore and micro-crack, Zhu et al. provides for such to come into contact with a second “stage” thereof, i.e., 10-20 microns/20-30 microns).
With respect to independent claim 9, Zhu et al. discloses a method of using a tracer additive in a wellbore, the method comprising:
disposing the tracer into the wellbore so that the tracer comes into contact with a target formation in communication with the wellbore ([p. 5, “injection of tracer according to the following”]);
upon contacting the target formation for an amount of time, returning a remnant fluid that includes at least a portion of the tracer to a surface ([p. 5, “3) sampling...once a day”; claim 7]);
taking a sample of the remnant fluid ([p. 2, 3)…then the monitor sampling]);
providing the sample to a surface facility ([p. 5, “3) sampling...once a day”; claim 7]);
testing the sample at the surface facility in order to analyze the remnant fluid in order to provide a set of fluid data [p. 2, “using said solid tracer emitted bright fluorescence color…it can directly judge the presence of the tracer and for analysis of subsequent monitoring result; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “The invention adopts” and tracer output situation analysis is disclosed];
wherein prior to testing the sample, the sample is filtered (p. 5, bottom, wherein oil-water separation, i.e., filtering, is conducted – p. 6, top, wherein the sample is tested),
wherein the tracer has a first tracer composition [p. 2, 1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer], and
wherein the tracer is in a non-magnetic solid powder form having an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 µm to 1 µm [p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter], and
With regard to the particle diameters, the Examiner notes, Zhu et al. discloses a tracer particle size of 1-10 microns [p. 5] and thereby overlapping the range instantly disclosed by Applicant in the specification as filed at [0024] as suitable. Although the specification further states that average particle size may be 0.1 to less than 1 micron, given the absence of evidence of the criticality of such a particle size range for the tracer, it is the position of the Office that the instantly claimed range for the particle diameter would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Zhu since 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). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”) The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed average particle diameters as critical; the specification, rather, recites a range of 0.1-10 microns, and, alternative, 0.1 to less than 1 micron, without indicating any criticality therefor and/or unexpected results attainable therewith. Since the tracers of Zhu et al. are suggested as suitable for use in a wellbore to determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using a tracer additive having an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 microns to less than 1 micron as claimed, and as such, the determination of optimal size range therefor, when Zhu et al. discloses a size of 1 micron may be used, would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Zhu et al. discloses wherein the testing the sample step comprises using a fluorescence-response based analysis [p. 2, “using said solid tracer emitted bright fluorescence color…it can directly judge the presence of the tracer and for analysis of subsequent monitoring result; p. 4, paragraphs beginning with “The invention adopts” and “Solid tracer selected”]. The reference, however, fails to disclose wherein at the surface facility wherein such a sample is tested, the method includes EDXRF in order to analyze the remnant fluid via energy excitation at a sub-atomic level in order to provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid as claimed.
Beumer et al. teaches monitoring of crude oil containing fluids at the surface (abstract) wherein measurements used for such samples can be made by UV fluorescent technology or x-ray fluorescent technology ([0027]); UVF methods are suggested as operator and maintenance intensive ([0027]) while EDXFR is suggested as a suitable alternative thereto, wherein the remnant crude oil containing fluid can be subjected to energy excitation that excites a broad range of target elements in the sample which can be used to detect an elemental composition of the remnant fluid ([0032]).
Since Beumer et al. suggests EDXRF as an alternative to UV methods, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try an EDXRF method as claimed and suggested by Beumer et al. in order to provide a less operator and maintenance intensive method that can analyze the elemental composition of the remnant fluid of Zhu et al. and thereby determine the presence and absence of the elemental composition, i.e., tracer, therein.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Zhu et al. discloses the method further comprising:
integrating the set of fluid data with other wellbore data in order to provide a visual indicator related to performance of the wellbore [p. 2, “The invention uses tracer monitoring…realizes the tracer monitoring by the data to the visualization and improves the reliability of tracer technology, breaks through the tracer monitoring with no crack in the reservoir; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “As shown in Fig. 1,” wherein displacement is adjustable; p. 6, “The method of the invention to obtain the crack opening data base matched with the data”]; and
disposing a second tracer into the wellbore [p. 2, wherein at “1)” Zhu et al. discloses selecting fluorescent solid particles, thereby suggesting a second tracer additive], so that the second tracer comes into contact with another stage of the wellbore (the reference further suggests wherein in such a method is conducted for micro-crack studies, wherein such a crack is distributed between 1-10 microns, 10-20 microns and 20-30 microns (p. 6), i.e., a second and third “stages” of the wellbore. As such, by provision of a second tracer to the wellbore and micro-crack, Zhu et al. provides for such to come into contact with a second “stage” thereof, i.e., 10-20 microns/20-30 microns).
With respect to dependent claim 13, Zhu et al. discloses wherein disposing the tracer into the wellbore further comprises using at least one as claimed ([p. 2, “1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer; 2) is mixed with water; the mass ratio of solid tracer is mixed with water in step 2)]; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “As shown in FIG. 1” wherein injection pump 3 is disclosed).
With respect to dependent claim 14, Zhu et al. discloses where no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Crews et al. (US 2010/0314108).
Zhu et al. suggests wherein multiple solid particles of the solid tracer are utilized, thereby providing for a second tracer additive as claimed, as well as suggesting wherein such would have an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 µm to 1 µm [p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter] (see further explanation with respect thereto within the rejection of claim 1 above). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second tracer additive is a different composition from the tracer additive. Crews et al. teaches methods of using tracers within subterranean reservoirs wherein a first set of tracer/taggant particles and a second set of tracer particles are used, each of which has its own unique identification (abstract); various methods may be used for the detection thereof including XRF and/or XRD ([0022]); the use of distinct compositions for each tracer set allows fluid flow to be correlated to the zone from which it was received/produced (abstract). The particles are further noted to range in diameter and can have such in a range of 0.1 µm to 1 µm ([0033]). Since Zhu et al. suggests the use of multiple solid particles exhibiting fluorescence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a second tracer additive having a different composition in order to allow for monitoring in reservoirs wherein more than one injection well is present so that an accurate depiction of fluid flow, or absence thereof, can be determined by injecting each different composition in separate locations/zones should such be present.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 2015/0293007) and Cannan et al. (US 2016/0075937).
Zhu et al. discloses wherein the method is conducted in ultra-low permeability sandstone formations [p. 6]. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose a permeability associated therewith, and, thus suggest a permeability within the range as claimed. Ramakrishnan et al. teaches wherein rock samples having “ultra-low” permeability are those having permeabilities in the range of hundreds of nanoDarcies to 100 mD ([0003]). Since Zhu et al. suggests target zones having ultra-low permeabilities, and it is known ultra low permeabilities are defined as within a range that includes hundreds of nanodarcies, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try the method of Zhu et al. in a target zone having an average permeability within the range as claimed in order to monitor and analyze the oil field development therein. Given Zhu et al.’s suggestion of target zones having ultra-low permeability and Ramakrishnan et al.’s teaching that such includes permeabilities in the range of nanodarcies, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal permeabilities values which may be monitored using the method of Zhu et al. as overlapping the range instantly claimed since 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).
Zhu et al., however, fails to disclose wherein the target formation is associated with a frac stage, and, further, wherein the wellbore is associated with a formation temperature within the range as instantly claimed. Cannan et al. teaches tracer materials injected into at least one stage of a subterranean formation to open a fracture therein ([0008]), i.e., a frac stage, which are used for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and performance of a hydraulic fracturing treatment ([0002]). Downhole conditions encountered therein may include temperatures of at least 100oC to 2,000oC ([0032]-[0033]). Since Zhu et al. suggests the method as used to monitor a crack in a reservoir so as to monitor and record related information therein, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try such a method wherein the target formation is a frac stage in order to yield the predictable result of evaluating the effectiveness and performance of the fracturing method conducted therein. With regard to the temperature thereat, one of ordinary skill would recognize the appropriate temperature conditions under which such a method is to take place as temperatures known to be encountered in subterranean formations overlap those within the instantly claimed range, as further exemplified by Cannan et al., and it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abbad et al. (US 2023/0160298).
Zhu et al. discloses where no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method.
With regard to how the set of data is obtained, Zhu et al. discloses using tracer monitoring and data visualization, wherein tracer displacement is adjustable and wherein the method obtains the crack opening data base matched with the data; although silent to the “use” of an artificial intelligence neural network, Abbad et al. teaches using artificial intelligence neural networks as built and trained using data from a reservoir to output correlating data ([0029]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art when matching data and making adjustments in the obtaining data step of Zhu et al. to try an artificial intelligence neural network in order to correlate the data obtained and make adjustments thereto in order to determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Crews et al..
Zhu et al. suggests wherein multiple solid particles of the solid tracer are utilized, thereby providing for a second tracer additive that is otherwise also in non-magnetic powder form, as well as suggesting wherein such would have an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 µm to 1 µm [p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter] (see further explanation with respect thereto within the rejection of claim 1 above). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second tracer additive is a different composition from the tracer additive. Crews et al. teaches methods of using tracers within subterranean reservoirs wherein a first set of tracer/taggant particles and a second set of tracer particles are used, each of which has its own unique identification (abstract); various methods may be used for the detection thereof including XRF and/or XRD ([0022]); the use of distinct compositions for each tracer set allows fluid flow to be correlated to the zone from which it was received/produced (abstract). The particles are further noted to range in diameter and can have such in a range of 0.1 µm to 1 µm ([0033]). Since Zhu et al. suggests the use of multiple solid particles exhibiting fluorescence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a second tracer additive having a different composition in order to allow for monitoring in reservoirs wherein more than one injection well is present so that an accurate depiction of fluid flow, or absence thereof, can be determined by injecting each different composition in separate locations/zones should such be present.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al., and, further, in view of Crews et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ramakrishnan et al..
Zhu et al. discloses the method as conducted in ultra-low permeability sandstone formations [p. 6]. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose a permeability associated therewith, and, thus suggest a permeability within the range as claimed. Ramakrishnan et al. teaches wherein rock samples having “ultra-low” permeability are those having permeabilities in the range of hundreds of nanoDarcies to 100 mD ([0003]). Since Zhu et al. suggests target zones having ultra-low permeabilities, and it is known ultra low permeabilities are defined as within a range that includes hundreds of nanodarcies, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try the method of Zhu et al. in a target zone having an average permeability within the range as claimed in order to monitor and analyze the oil field development therein. Given Zhu et al.’s suggestion of target zones having ultra-low permeability and Ramakrishnan et al.’s teaching that such includes permeabilities in the range of nanodarcies, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal permeabilities values which may be monitored using the method of Zhu et al. as overlapping the range instantly claimed since 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Schimmel et al. (US 2022/0276217).
Zhu et al. fails to disclose wherein the target formation is part of a geothermal well and the remnant fluid is used in an energy generation process as claimed. Schimmel et al. teaches methods of using a tracer particle that can be applied in the characterization of rocks/rock layers, reservoir monitoring, oil detection or geothermal energy ([0157]). The reference further suggests wherein tracers exhibiting fluorescence can be used in geothermal systems for routine real-time monitoring as such may prove advantageous therein ([0042]; [0059]) and further suggests wherein such can be used in geothermal power generation, i.e., energy generation ([0003]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try the method of Zhu et al., disclosed as conducted on a target formation to monitor a reservoir, on a target formation in a geothermal system, wherein the remnant fluid is used in an energy generation process associated therewith as such is a known alternative target zone monitored by the use of tracers to the zones targeted for reservoir monitoring disclosed by Zhu et al., and, as such, one of ordinary skill would recognize the applicability of the method of Zhu et al. therein in order to monitor the geothermal formation in an advantageous manner.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. in view of Beumer et al. and Crews et al..
With respect to independent claim 16, Zhu et al. discloses a method of using a tracer in a wellbore, the method comprising:
disposing the tracer into the wellbore so that at some point thereafter the tracer comes into contact with a first stage of the wellbore [p. 5, “injection of tracer according to the following”];
upon contacting the target formation for an amount of time, returning a remnant fluid that includes at least a portion of the tracer to a surface [p. 5, “3) sampling..once a day”; claim 7];
taking a sample of the remnant fluid [p. 2, 3)…then the monitor sampling];
filtering the sample to provide a filtered sample (p. 5, bottom, wherein oil-water separation, i.e., filtering, is conducted – p. 6, top, wherein the sample is tested);
testing the sample in order to analyze the remnant fluid in order to provide a set of fluid data [p. 2, “using said solid tracer emitted bright fluorescence color…it can directly judge the presence of the tracer and for analysis of subsequent monitoring result; p. 4, paragraph beginning with “The invention adopts” and tracer output situation analysis is disclosed];
from the same wellbore, disposing a second tracer ([p. 2, wherein at “1)” Zhu et al. discloses selecting fluorescent solid particles, thereby suggesting a second tracer additive, wherein the tracer solution is injected from the injection well]) into the wellbore so that the second tracer additive comes into contact with a second stage of the wellbore (p. 6, wherein the reference suggests wherein such a method is conducted for micro-crack studies, wherein such a crack is distributed between 1-10 microns, 10-20 microns and 20-30 microns, i.e., second and third “stages” of the wellbore. As such, by provision of a second tracer to the wellbore and micro-crack, Zhu et al. provides for such to come into contact with a second “stage” thereof, i.e., 10-20 microns/20-30 microns);
wherein the tracer has a first tracer composition [p. 2, 1) selecting fluorescent solid particles insoluble in water as a solid tracer],
wherein the tracer is in a non-magnetic solid powder form [no disclosure of a magnetic solid is provided],
wherein no step of the method uses or is associated with at least one of: a magnet, a magnetic feature, and combinations thereof (no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method);
wherein the second tracer is also in non-magnetic powder form [p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter], and
wherein each of the first tracer additive and the second tracer additive have a respective average particle diameter of at least 0.1 µm to 10 µm [p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter];
wherein the set of data is used to provide a visual indicator related to the performance of the wellbore (Abstract, wherein “tracer monitoring data to the visualization…” is disclosed; p. 4, wherein “in the reservoir for subsequent profile or driving provides more reliable parameters and improve profile control or driving adjusting success rate” is disclosed; see also Fig. 2), and
wherein the visual indicator refers to at least one of: reservoir quality, completion quality, and combinations thereof (Abstract, wherein “tracer monitoring data to the visualization…” is disclosed; p. 4, wherein “in the reservoir for subsequent profile or driving provides more reliable parameters and improve profile control or driving adjusting success rate” is disclosed; see also Fig. 2).
With regard to the particle diameters, the Examiner notes, Zhu et al. discloses a tracer particle size of 1-10 microns [p. 5], thereby overlapping the range instantly claimed and disclosed by Applicant in the specification as filed at [0024]. It is the position of the Office that the instantly claimed range for the particle diameter would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Zhu since 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). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”) The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed average particle diameters as critical; the specification, rather, merely recites a range of 0.1-10 microns, without indicating any criticality therefor and/or unexpected results attainable therewith. Since the tracers of Zhu et al. are disclosed to have a size overlapping that which is instantly claimed and suggested as suitable for use in a wellbore to determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using a tracer additive having an average particle diameter as claimed, and as such, the determination of optimal size range therefor as claimed would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Zhu et al. discloses wherein the testing the sample step comprises using a fluorescence-response based analysis [p. 2, “using said solid tracer emitted bright fluorescence color…it can directly judge the presence of the tracer and for analysis of subsequent monitoring result; p. 4, paragraphs beginning with “The invention adopts” and “Solid tracer selected”]. The reference, however, fails to disclose wherein at the surface/“lab” facility wherein such a sample is tested, the method includes EDXRF in order to analyze the remnant fluid via energy excitation at a sub-atomic level in order to provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid as claimed.
Beumer et al. teaches monitoring of crude oil containing fluids at the surface (abstract), i.e., a “lab,” wherein measurements used for such samples can be made by UV fluorescent technology or x-ray fluorescent technology ([0027]); UVF methods are suggested as operator and maintenance intensive ([0027]) while EDXFR is suggested as a suitable alternative thereto, wherein the remnant crude oil containing fluid can be subjected to energy excitation that excites a broad range of target elements in the sample which can be used to detect an elemental composition of the remnant fluid ([0032]). It is further noted, Beumer et al. teaches wherein prior to testing the sample is filtered for the purpose of optimizing the system ([0036]-[0037]).
Since Beumer et al. suggests EDXRF as an alternative to UV methods, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try an EDXRF method as claimed and suggested by Beumer et al. in order to provide a less operator and maintenance intensive method that can analyze the elemental composition of the remnant crude oil containing fluid of Zhu et al. and thereby determine the presence or absence of the tracer therewith. Additionally, with regard to filtering, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to filter the sample prior to testing in order to optimize the analysis thereof.
Zhu et al. suggests wherein multiple solid particles of the solid tracer are utilized, thereby providing for a second tracer additive as claimed, as well as suggesting wherein such would have an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 µm to 10 µm [p. 2, the grain, i.e., powder, diameter, is 1-200 µm; p. 5, the paragraph beginning with “in the process of selecting the grain diameter] as claimed (see further explanation with respect thereto within the rejection above). The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second tracer additive is a different composition from the tracer additive.
Crews et al. teaches methods of using tracers within subterranean reservoirs wherein a first set of tracer/taggant particles and a second set of tracer particles are used, each of which has its own unique identification (abstract); various methods may be used for the detection thereof including XRF and/or XRD ([0022]); the use of distinct compositions for each tracer set allows fluid flow to be correlated to the zone from which it was received/produced (abstract). The particles are further noted to range in diameter and can have such in a range of 0.1 µm to 1 µm ([0033]).
Since Zhu et al. suggests the use of multiple solid particles exhibiting fluorescence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a second tracer additive having a different composition in order to allow for monitoring in reservoirs wherein more than one injection well is present so that an accurate depiction of fluid flow, or absence thereof, can be determined by injecting each different composition in separate locations/zones should such be present.
With respect to dependent claim 17, Zhu et al. discloses a tracer particle size of 1-10 microns [p. 5], thereby overlapping the range instantly claimed and disclosed by Applicant in the specification as filed at [0024]. It is the position of the Office that the instantly claimed range for the particle diameters would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Zhu since 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). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A simple case in the predictable arts that does not require expertise to find that the claimed range of “less than 6 lbs/ft3” and the prior art range of “between 6lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3” are so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious.”) The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed average particle diameters as critical; the specification, rather, merely recites a range of 0.1-10 microns, without indicating any criticality therefor and/or unexpected results attainable therewith. Since the tracers of Zhu et al. are disclosed to have a size overlapping that which is instantly claimed and suggested as suitable for use in a wellbore to determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using a tracer additive having an average particle diameter as claimed, and as such, the determination of optimal size range therefor as claimed would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Zhu et al. discloses the method as set forth above with respect to claim 17, where no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. in view of Allen et al. (US 2013/0044858) and/or Beumer et al.
With respect to independent claim 1, Crews et al. discloses a method of using an inert, non-magnetic tracer ([0030]-[0031]; [0037]) in a wellbore, the method comprising:
disposing the tracer into the wellbore so that the tracer comes into contact with a target formation in communication with the wellbore ([0011]; [0021]);
upon contacting the target formation for an amount of time, returning a remnant fluid that includes at least a portion of the tracer to a surface ([0016]; [0021]);
taking a sample of the remnant fluid ([0022]);
providing the sample to a surface facility ([0022]);
testing the sample at the surface facility in order to provide a set of data associated with performance of the wellbore ([0016]; [0021]-[0022]);
wherein the inert, non-magnetic tracer additive has a first tracer composition ([0021], wherein chemically distinct taggants will be used in different zones; [0029], wherein the nano-size particles are tagged with a taggant and the exact choice is distinguishable), and
wherein the inert, non-magnetic tracer additive is in a solid powder form having an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 microns to less than 1 micron ([0031]-[0032], wherein the taggant is added to a nano-sized particle; [0036], wherein the size of the nanoparticles is 1-1000 nm and values including 100 nm and 1000 nm, i.e., 0.1 and 1 micron, respectively, are noted).
Crews et al. discloses testing the sample at the surface facility by “any suitable detection method” and lists various options including X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) ([0022]). Taggants detected by such methods include various alkaline earth metals as well as transition metals such as V, Co, Cu and Mn ([0030]). The reference, however, fails to specify ED-XRF as the manner for testing the sample.
Allen et al. teaches an x-ray analysis system for analysis of sample streams ([0002]) containing low or high viscosity petroleum based products requiring the measurement of an analyte such as V, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and Zn ([0019]; claims 14 and 20); the x-ray analysis conducted is XRF in the form of MWDXRF or ME-EDXRF ([0018]). Such methods are further suggested as particularly useful in real-time on-line sample flow and analysis ([0055]). Since both Crews et al. and Allen et al. teach XRF methods for detecting a tracer/analyte selected from a group of overlapping elements, wherein Allen et al. further suggests EDXRF as one of two types of XRF used to detect such analytes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try EDXRF as the XRF method in Crews et al. in order to yield the predictable result of detecting the XRF signature of the tracer particles within a sample produced by the method disclosed therein so as to analyze the remnant fluid at a sub-atomic level and provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid therein.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Beumer et al. teaches XRF analyzers used to analyze for a trace element in a petroleum stream such as V, Mn, Co or Cu, wherein such analyzers may be an MWDXRF or ME-EDXRF analyzer (abstract). It is further noted, Beumer et al. teaches wherein prior to testing the sample is filtered for the purpose of optimizing the system ([0036]-[0037]).
Sine Crews et al. discloses any analyzer/detection method may be used, such as XRF, and wherein trace elements such as V, Mn, Co or Cu are detected thereby and Beumer et al. teaches EDXRF as a type of XRF capable of detecting trace elements such as V, Mn, Co or Cu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try EDXRF as the detection method in Crews et al. in order to yield the predictable result of determining the presence of the trace elements in the produced fluids therewith so as to determine a parameter associated with wellbore performance associated therewith, i.e., the zone from which the trace element was obtained.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Beumer et al. teaches wherein prior to testing the sample is filtered for the purpose of optimizing the system ([0036]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to filter the sample prior to testing in order to optimize the analysis thereof.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Crews et al. discloses wherein the set of data is used to provide a visual indicator related to at least one of: completion quality, reservoir quality, and combinations thereof ([0016]; [0021]).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Crews et al. discloses wherein disposing the tracer into the wellbore further comprises at least one as claimed ([0021]).
With respect to dependent claim 5, Crews et al. discloses from the same wellbore, disposing a second non-magnetic tracer into the wellbore so that the second tracer additive comes into contact with a second stage of the wellbore ([0016]).
With respect to further dependent claim 6, Crews et al. discloses wherein the second tracer is a different composition from the tracer additive ([0016], wherein the taggant is unique to each zone), but is otherwise also in non-magnetic powder form ([0030]-[0032]), with an average particle diameter as claimed ([0036]).
With respect to independent claim 9, Crews et al. discloses a method of using a tracer in a wellbore, the method comprising:
disposing the tracer into the wellbore so that the tracer comes into contact with a target formation in communication with the wellbore ([0011]; [0021]);
upon contacting the target formation for an amount of time, returning a remnant fluid that includes at least a portion of the tracer to a surface ([0016]; [0021]);
taking a sample of the remnant fluid ([0022]);
providing the sample to a surface facility ([0022]); and
testing the sample at the surface facility in order to provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid ([0022]);
wherein the tracer has a first tracer composition ([0021], wherein chemically distinct taggants will be used in different zones; [0029], wherein the nano-size particles are tagged with a taggant and the exact choice is distinguishable), and
wherein the tracer is in a non-magnetic solid powder form having an average particle diameter of at least 0.1 microns to less than 1 micron ([0031]-[0032], wherein the taggant is added to a nano-sized particle; [0036], wherein the size of the nanoparticles is 1-1000 nm and values including 100 nm and 1000 nm, i.e., 0.1 and 1 micron, respectively, are noted).
Crews et al. discloses testing the sample at the surface facility by “any suitable detection method” and lists various options including X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) ([0022]). Taggants detected by such methods include various alkaline earth metals as well as transition metals such as V, Co, Cu and Mn ([0030]). The reference, however, fails to specify ED-XRF as the manner for testing the sample, and, further, wherein prior to testing the sample, the sample is filtered, as claimed.
Allen et al. teaches an x-ray analysis system for analysis of sample streams ([0002]) containing low or high viscosity petroleum based products requiring the measurement of an analyte such as V, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and Zn ([0019]; claims 14 and 20); the x-ray analysis conducted is XRF in the form of MWDXRF or ME-EDXRF ([0018]). Such methods are further suggested as particularly useful in real-time on-line sample flow and analysis ([0055]). Since both Crews et al. and Allen et al. teach XRF methods for detecting a tracer/analyte selected from a group of overlapping elements, wherein Allen et al. further suggests EDXRF as one of two types of XRF used to detect such analytes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try EDXRF as the XRF method in Crews et al. in order to yield the predictable result of detecting the XRF signature of the tracer particles within a sample produced by the method disclosed therein so as to analyze the remnant fluid at a sub-atomic level and provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid therein.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Beumer et al. teaches XRF analyzers used to analyze for a trace element in a petroleum stream such as V, Mn, Co or Cu, wherein such analyzers may be an MWDXRF or ME-EDXRF analyzer (abstract). Beumer et al. further teaches wherein prior to testing the sample is filtered for the purpose of optimizing the system ([0036]-[0037]). Since Crews et al. discloses any analyzer/detection method may be used, such as XRF, and wherein trace elements such as V, Mn, Co or Cu are detected thereby and Beumer et al. teaches EDXRF as a type of XRF capable of detecting trace elements such as V, Mn, Co or Cu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try EDXRF as the detection method in Crews et al. in order to yield the predictable result of determining the presence of the trace elements in the produced fluids therewith so as to determine a parameter associated with wellbore performance associated therewith, i.e., the zone from which the trace element was obtained. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to filter the sample prior to testing in order to optimize the analysis thereof.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Crews et al. discloses integrating the set of fluid data with other wellbore data in order to provide a visual indicator related to performance of the wellbore determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore ([0016]; [0021]-[0022]); and disposing a second tracer into the wellbore so that the second tracer comes into contact with another stage of the wellbore ([0020]-[0021]).
With respect to further dependent claim 11, Crews et al. discloses wherein the second tracer is a different composition from the tracer additive ([0016], wherein the taggant is unique to each zone), but is otherwise also in non-magnetic powder form ([0030]-[0032]), with an average particle diameter as claimed ([0036]).
With respect to dependent claim 13, Crews et al. discloses wherein disposing the tracer into the wellbore comprises one as claimed ([0021]).
With respect to dependent claim 14, Crews et al. discloses wherein no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method.
With respect to independent claim 16, Crews et al. discloses a method of using a tracer in a wellbore, the method comprising:
disposing the tracer into the wellbore so that at some point thereafter the tracer comes into contact with a first stage of the wellbore ([0011]; [0020]-[0021]);
upon contacting the target formation for an amount of time, returning a remnant fluid that includes at least a portion of the tracer to a surface ([0016]; [0021]);
taking a sample of the remnant fluid ([0022]);
providing the sample to a lab/surface facility ([0022]);
testing the sample at the surface facility in order to provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid ([0022]);
from the same wellbore, disposing a second tracer additive into the wellbore so that at some point thereafter, the second tracer comes into contact with a second stage of the wellbore ([0016]; [0020]-[0021]),
wherein the tracer has a first tracer composition, wherein the tracer is in a non-magnetic solid powder form ([0030]-[0032], wherein the taggant is added to a nano-sized particle),
wherein no step of the method uses or is associated with at least one of: a magnet, a magnetic feature, and combinations thereof (Crews et al. discloses wherein no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method),
wherein the second tracer is also in a non-magnetic powder form ([0016], wherein unique tracers are placed in each zone),
wherein each of the first tracer additive and the second tracer additive have a respective average particle diameter of at least 0.1 microns to less than 1 micron ([0031]-[0032], wherein the taggant is added to a nano-sized particle; [0036], wherein the size of the nanoparticles is 1-1000 nm and values including 100 nm and 1000 nm, i.e., 0.1 and 1 micron, respectively, are noted),
wherein the set of data is used to provide a visual indicator related to performance of the wellbore ([0016]; [0020]-[0022]), and
wherein the visual indicator refers to at least one of reservoir quality, completion quality, and combinations thereof ([0016]; [0020]-[0022]).
Crews et al. discloses testing the sample at the surface facility by “any suitable detection method” and lists various options including X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) ([0022]). Taggants detected by such methods include various alkaline earth metals as well as transition metals such as V, Co, Cu and Mn ([0030]). The reference, however, fails to specify ED-XRF as the manner for testing the sample and wherein the sample is filtered to provide a filtered sample for such testing.
Allen et al. teaches an x-ray analysis system for analysis of sample streams ([0002]) containing low or high viscosity petroleum based products requiring the measurement of an analyte such as V, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and Zn ([0019]; claims 14 and 20); the x-ray analysis conducted is XRF in the form of MWDXRF or ME-EDXRF ([0018]). Such methods are further suggested as particularly useful in real-time on-line sample flow and analysis ([0055]). Since both Crews et al. and Allen et al. teach XRF methods for detecting a tracer/analyte selected from a group of overlapping elements, wherein Allen et al. further suggests EDXRF as one of two types of XRF used to detect such analytes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try EDXRF as the XRF method in Crews et al. in order to yield the predictable result of detecting the XRF signature of the tracer particles within a sample produced by the method disclosed therein so as to analyze the remnant fluid at a sub-atomic level and provide a set of fluid data associated with an elemental composition of the remnant fluid therein.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Beumer et al. teaches XRF analyzers used to analyze for a trace element in a petroleum stream such as V, Mn, Co or Cu, wherein such analyzers may be an MWDXRF or ME-EDXRF analyzer (abstract). Beumer et al. further teaches wherein prior to testing the sample is filtered for the purpose of optimizing the system ([0036]-[0037]). Since Crews et al. discloses any analyzer/detection method may be used, such as XRF, and wherein trace elements such as V, Mn, Co or Cu are detected thereby and Beumer et al. teaches EDXRF as a type of XRF capable of detecting trace elements such as V, Mn, Co or Cu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try EDXRF as the detection method in Crews et al. in order to yield the predictable result of determining the presence of the trace elements in the produced fluids therewith so as to determine a parameter associated with wellbore performance associated therewith, i.e., the zone from which the trace element was obtained. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to filter the sample prior to testing in order to optimize the analysis thereof.
With respect to dependent claim 17, Crews et al. discloses wherein the respective bulk average particle diameter of each of the first tracer and the second tracer less than 1 micron ([0031]-[0032], wherein the taggant is added to a nano-sized particle; [0036], wherein the size of the nanoparticles is 1-1000 nm and values including 100 nm and 1000 nm, i.e., 0.1 and 1 micron, respectively, are noted).
With respect to dependent claim 18, Crews et al. discloses wherein no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. in view of Allen et al. and/or Beumer et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cannan et al. and Gonzales et al. (US 2013/0245953).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Crews et al. discloses wherein the target formation is associated with a frac stage ([0016]). The reference, however, fails to disclose the temperature and/or permeability associated therewith.
Cannan et al. teaches tracer materials injected into at least one stage of a subterranean formation to open a fracture therein ([0008]), i.e., a frac stage, which are used for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and performance of a hydraulic fracturing treatment ([0002]). Downhole conditions encountered therein may include temperatures of at least 100oC to 2,000oC ([0032]-[0033]). Since Crews et al. suggests the method as used to in a multi-stage fracturing treatment, and Callan et al. teaches temperatures associated with formations in which such is conducting as having temperatures as noted above, one of ordinary skill would recognize the appropriate temperature conditions under which such a method is to take place as temperatures known to be encountered in subterranean formations overlap those within the instantly claimed range, as further exemplified by Cannan et al., and it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Gonzales et al. teaches methods of determining production contribution from fractured intervals in a reservoir ([0003]) wherein it is taught it is known chemical tracers are known to be used for such purposes ([0005]). The reference further suggests wherein in the method can be applied to formations having a very low permeability on the order of nanodarcies ([0028]; [0036]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try the method of Crews et al. on a formation having a very low permeability on the nanodarcy level in order to determine the contribution from each fracture of the fracture stages therein. With regard to the specific nanodarcy permeability as within the range as claimed, given the teachings of Gonzales et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal permeabilities values which may be monitored using the method of Crews et al. in view of Gonzales et al. as overlapping the range instantly claimed since 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. in view of Allen et al. and/or Beumer et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abbad et al..
Crews et al. discloses where no step of the method disclosed therein uses or is associated with a magnet, a magnetic feature and/or a combination thereof, as no disclosure of magnets is present therein. As such, it would at least be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to not use or associate a magnet or magnetic feature with any step of the method disclosed therein as the reference clearly does not require and/or suggest the use of such with the disclosed method.
With regard to the integrating the set of fluid data with other wellbore data, Crews et al. discloses using tracer monitoring and analyzing by any suitable detection method to determine the composition of the taggant, and, thus, zone associated therewith ([0022]). Although silent to the “use” of an artificial intelligence neural network, Abbad et al. teaches using artificial intelligence neural networks as built and trained using data from a reservoir to output correlating data ([0029]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art when matching data to determine from which zone the taggant is produced so that adjustments can be made for future treatments to try an artificial intelligence neural network in order to correlate the data obtained and determine a parameter associated with performance of the wellbore.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. in view of Allen et al. and/or Beumer et al., as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gonzales et al..
Crews et al. discloses the method as set forth above, wherein the method is applicable to multi-stage fracturing operations in a target zone ([0016]). The reference, however, fails to disclose the permeability associated therewith.
Gonzales et al. teaches methods of determining production contribution from fractured intervals in a reservoir ([0003]) wherein it is taught it is known chemical tracers are known to be used for such purposes ([0005]). The reference further suggests wherein in the method can be applied to formations having a very low permeability on the order of nanodarcies ([0028]; [0036]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try the method of Crews et al. on a formation having a very low permeability on the nanodarcy level in order to determine the contribution from each fracture of the fracture stages therein. With regard to the specific nanodarcy permeability as within the range as claimed, given the teachings of Gonzales et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the optimal permeabilities values which may be monitored using the method of Crews et al. in view of Gonzales et al. as overlapping the range instantly claimed since 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. in view of Allen et al. and/or Beumer et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Schimmel et al..
Crews et al. fails to disclose wherein the target formation is part of a geothermal well and the remnant fluid is used in an energy generation process. Schimmel et al. teaches methods of using a tracer particle that can be applied in the characterization of rocks/rock layers, reservoir monitoring, oil detection or geothermal energy ([0157]). The reference further suggests wherein tracers can be used therein geothermal systems for routine real-time monitoring as such may prove advantageous therein ([0042]; [0059]) and further suggests wherein such can be used in geothermal power generation, i.e., energy generation ([0003]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try the method of Crews et al., disclosed as conducted on a target formation to monitor a reservoir, on a target formation in a geothermal system, wherein the remnant fluid is used in an energy generation process associated therewith as such is a known alternative target zone monitored by the use of tracers to the zones targeted for reservoir monitoring disclosed by Crews et al., and, as such, one of ordinary skill would recognize the applicability of the method of Crews et al. therein in order to monitor the geothermal formation in an advantageous manner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,644,377 (‘377 herein). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and those as issued in ‘377 provide for a method of using an inert non-magnetic tracer in a wellbore, wherein such a tracer is disposed in the wellbore so as to contact a target formation therein, a remnant fluid that includes the tracer is returned to the surface and a sample thereof taken and provided to a surface facility for testing via EDXRF so as to provide a set of data associated with performance of the wellbore, wherein the tracer is in a solid powder form having a bulk average particle diameter of at least 0.1 micron to less than 1 micron. As the instant claims are fully encompassed thereby, they are not patentably distinct thereover.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/747,807 (‘807 herein) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and those of ‘807 provide for a method of using a first and second inert and non-magnetic tracer additive by disposing such in a wellbore so that such comes into contact with a target formation, wherein upon contact of the tracers therewith, a remnant fluid is returned to the surface and tested using EDXRF to provide a set of data that includes information associated with the tracer additives. As such, the instant claims are not patentably distinct therefrom and thus subject to double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0251252 discloses the use of EDXRF for detecting tracer concentrations in polymeric material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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 on 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
09/15/26
Prosecution Insights