Patent: 10,005,954

Summary for Patent: 10,005,954

Title:	Plant extracted oil based polyepoxy resin composition for improved performance of natural sand placed in fracture
Abstract:	A method of treating a subterranean formation including providing a plant oil-based (POB) liquid hardenable resin, providing proppant particles, providing a hardening agent, combining the POB liquid hardenable resin and the hardening agent to form a resin compound, coating the resin compound onto at least a portion of the proppant particles to create resin-coated proppant particles, and placing the coated proppant particles into a subterranean formation zone, wherein the resin compound does not substantially cure prior to placing the resin coated proppant particles into the subterranean formation zone.
Inventor(s):	Raysoni; Neelam Deepak (Pune, IN), Salla; Rajender (Pune, IN), Wadekar; Sushant Dattaram (Pune, IN)
Assignee:	Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Houston, TX)
Application Number:	15/315,346
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

US Patent 10,005,954 (Resin-Coated Proppant With Encapsulated Amine via Hydrolysable Material): Claim Scope and U.S. Patent Landscape Analysis

Executive summary. U.S. Patent 10,005,954 claims a fracturing proppant-pack system where a plant oil-based (POB) liquid hardenable resin is combined with an amine hardening agent encapsulated by a hydrolysable material, then resin-coated proppant is pumped in slickwater to allow delayed curing after placement. The claim set is built around (i) hydrolysable encapsulation of the amine, (ii) POB resin chemistry (vegetable oils and epoxidized derivatives), and (iii) process timing constraints that prevent “substantial cure” before downhole placement. The competitive threat is concentrated in other U.S. families covering (a) resin-coated proppants for wellbore fracture applications, (b) delayed-cure resin systems using encapsulation or protected hardeners, and (c) use of vegetable/epoxidized oils as resin precursors. The highest-risk design-around pathways are likely to shift hardener protection mechanism (non-hydrolysable encapsulants), substitute non-amine hardeners, or change the resin cure “timing” so that the resin substantially cures before placement.

---

What does claim 1 of US 10,005,954 require for infringement (method steps + delayed cure + encapsulated amine)?

Claim 1 key elements (independent). In the U.S., infringement analysis starts with claim 1’s full combination. Claim 1 requires:

1. POB liquid hardenable resin (plant oil-based, “liquid hardenable resin”).
2. Proppant particles.
3. Amine hardening agent encapsulated by a hydrolysable material.
4. Combine POB resin + encapsulated amine to form a resin compound.
5. Coat resin compound onto at least a portion of proppant particles to create resin-coated proppant particles.
6. Prepare fracturing fluid comprising the resin-coated particles + a slickwater carrier.
7. Pump into subterranean formation at pressure above fracture gradient; create or extend at least one fracture.
8. Form a proppant pack in the fracture.
9. Dissolve the hydrolysable material (explicit step).
10. Cure the resin compound to form a cured proppant pack.

How courts typically treat this claim structure (practical scope).

• The claim reads like a fully integrated proppant-pack “sequence”. To avoid infringement, an accused system must avoid at least one required element or materially alter it so it falls outside claim language.
• Several limitations are “hard” in the sense they are explicit: hydrolysable encapsulation, dissolving hydrolysable material, curing after dissolving, and use in slickwater fracturing.

“Hydrolysable material” and “dissolving” are likely the most litigated anchors

Claim 1 includes both:

• the hardening agent is encapsulated by a hydrolysable material, and
• a step to dissolve the hydrolysable material.

This double requirement increases exclusionary power versus systems that:

• use moisture-activated curing without hydrolysable encapsulation, or
• use pH/temperature triggering that is not framed as “hydrolysable material,” or
• encapsulate hardener in a material that disintegrates mechanically rather than dissolves via hydrolysis.

“Resin compound does not substantially cure” variants broaden the tactical question

Claims 10 and 13 add timing constraints:

• claim 10: “resin compound does not substantially cure during coating”
• claim 13: “resin compound does not substantially cure prior to placing the resin coated proppant particles into the subterranean formation zone”

Those constraints target premature polymerization/gelation as a process defect in the field and act as an infringement filter for systems that cure earlier but still cure downhole.

---

Which downstream claim limitations narrow claim 1 into specific embodiments (POB oils, ratios, proppant types, pressure/overburden)?

Claim 2–4: specific POB resin constituents (vegetable oils and derivatives)

• Claim 2: POB resin comprises at least one of:
  • vegetable oil
  • epoxidized vegetable oil
  • epoxy derivative of monoglyceride of vegetable oil
  • fruit oil
• Claim 3: enumerates a long list of oils (linseed, soybean, palm, coconut, etc.).
• Claim 4: specifies soybean oil.

Enforcement reality. The enumerated lists can help plaintiffs argue the accused resin falls within the literal oil categories. However, defense can argue that the accused resin is not “plant oil-based” or not among the defined classes (e.g., non-epoxidized oils, synthetic oils, or blends outside the claimed definition).

Claim 5–6: compositional ratios (resin:hardener; resin compound:sand)

• Claim 5: POB liquid hardenable resin to hardening agent ratio about 8:2 to 2:8 by volume.
• Claim 6: resin compound to sand about 3% to 15% (volume by weight ratio as stated).

These ranges can be used for “entry-at-risk” infringement assessments because accused formulations often land in specific % windows.

Claim 7–8: proppant types, including poor-quality sand

• Claim 7: proppant includes sand, bauxite, ceramics, glass, nut/seed shell pieces and their cured resinous particulates, fruit pits, wood, and combinations.
• Claim 8: proppant is poor quality sand.

This suggests the patent targets economic proppants where conventional resin binders might not hold under stress. That can matter commercially because many fracture job specs push toward cheaper sand.

Claim 9: stress/overburden threshold

• Claim 9: subterranean zone overburden stresses about 6000 PSI or more.

This can matter when accused systems are used in lower-stress plays; however, in many infringement cases, the relevant downhole stress history is case-specific.

---

What do claims 10 and 13 add about “delayed cure” (during coating vs before placement)?

Claim 10: no substantial cure during coating

Claim 10 removes some downhole steps and emphasizes:

• resin-coated proppant particles made by coating resin compound with the amine encapsulated by hydrolysable material, and
• the resin compound does not substantially cure during coating.

This targets manufacturing window control: if an accused product cures substantially before it is formed into resin-coated proppant, it may fall outside claim 10 even if it cures downhole.

Claim 13: no substantial cure prior to placing into the subterranean formation

Claim 13 adds:

• proppant fines threshold: “greater than about 10% fines at overburden stress below about 2000 psi”
• the resin does not substantially cure before placing coated particles into the formation.

This is an attempt to tie the chemistry to high-fines, low-quality proppant contexts, where delayed cure prevents loss of resin integrity during handling.

---

What formulations and process claims 16–20 cover beyond the method of claim 1?

Claim 16: treating method with hardener encapsulation and timing

Claim 16 is a separate independent method claim framed as:

• combine POB resin + hardening agent (amine, amide, acid, phenol, thiol, etc.) + proppant to form resin-coated proppant particles,
• hardening agent encapsulated by hydrolysable material,
• place into subterranean zone where resin does not substantially cure prior to placement.

Key scope expansion vs claim 1:

• Claim 16 expands “hardening agent” to classes including amines, amides, acids, phenols, thiols.
• It emphasizes “resin does not substantially cure prior to placement.”

However, claim 16 still requires hydrolysable encapsulation and delayed cure timing.

Claim 17–18: POB oils again (vegetable/epoxidized etc., enumerated list)

These mirror claim 2–4 style narrowing.

Claim 19: coating timing before/after combining hardener

Claim 19 requires:

• proppant at least partially coated with POB liquid hardenable resin before the hardening agent is combined.

This addresses two manufacturing sequences:

• “coat resin then add hardener” versus “premix resin + hardener then coat.” If an accused method premixes before coating, claim 19 is harder to reach.

Claim 20: system claim

A “well treatment system” includes an apparatus configured to:

• provide POB resin, proppant, encapsulated amine hardener,
• combine to form resin compound,
• coat to make resin-coated proppant particles,
• place coated particles into the formation,
• where resin compound does not substantially cure prior to placing.

System claims often strengthen leverage in licensing and forensics because they target equipment and steps, not only end products.

---

How strong is the patent estate around US 10,005,954 (likely overlapping fields and dominant infringement theories)?

Because only the claim text is provided here, the analysis below focuses on technical claim drivers that typically align to the strongest prior-art and design-around clusters, and on where other U.S. patent families are most likely to intersect.

Dominant prior-art clusters that likely overlap this claim set

1. Resin-coated proppant for fracturing (general binder-coated sand for proppant-pack strength).
2. Delayed-cure resin systems for well services (protected hardeners, encapsulation, microcapsules, trigger-release mechanisms).
3. Plant-oil-based resins in industrial composites and coatings, and their adoption in well completions.
4. Epoxidized vegetable oils as reactive diluents/resins that crosslink with amines/hardening agents.
5. Encapsulation using hydrolysable shells/materials (materials that dissolve under downhole aqueous conditions) rather than purely thermally triggered capsules.

Most plausible infringement theories for a licensee or plaintiff

• Direct infringement based on step-by-step method performance: coating, slickwater placement, and downhole cure after dissolution.
• Indirect infringement can become relevant if coating and formulation are performed by different parties (service operator vs manufacturer of resin-coated proppant), but that requires evidence beyond claim text.

Most plausible defense theories

• Hardener mechanism swap: use a protected hardener where protection is not “encapsulated by a hydrolysable material,” or where the protective material does not dissolve in the relevant mechanism.
• Timing alteration: ensure resin cures during coating or before placement (“substantially cure” shifts the factual boundary).
• Resin chemistry swap: use a non-POB resin or a plant oil variant not captured by claim definition.
• Hardener type swap: if operating outside “amine hardening agent” (claim 1) and instead using non-amine hardeners, claim 1 can be avoided. Note claim 16 allows broader hardener classes, so the defense must align with which independent claim is asserted.

---

What generic entry risks exist if competitors attempt to commercialize around US 10,005,954?

In well services, “generic” means alternative proppant coating packages and chemical systems with functionally similar outcomes, not FDA generics. The entry risks hinge on whether competitors replicate the core “functional triangle” in claim terms:

1. POB resin chemistry
2. Encapsulated amine with hydrolysable material
3. Delayed cure until after placement via dissolution

High-risk equivalents (more likely to infringe)

• Amine hardeners encapsulated in hydrolysable polymeric materials that dissolve under downhole brine flow.
• Plant-oil epoxies or epoxidized vegetable oils crosslinked by released amines after hydrolysis.

Medium-risk variants

• Encapsulation with acid-labile or pH-triggered release that could be argued as “hydrolysable.”
• Different plant oils within the enumerated list (soybean is explicitly called out, but claim 3 is broader).

Lower-risk design-around approaches (often enough to exit literal claim language)

• Use hardener protection that is not hydrolysable (e.g., temperature-triggered release or non-hydrolysis dissolution pathways).
• Use resin/hardener systems where curing substantially proceeds during coating, changing the timing element for claims 10/13/16.
• Use non-amine hardeners when claim 1 is asserted (though claim 16 may still capture broader hardener classes if hydrolysable encapsulation and delayed cure still exist).

---

Which competitor profiles are most likely to overlap the claim scope (and why this matters for freedom-to-operate)?

The highest overlap typically comes from companies that commercialize:

• resin-coated proppant lines,
• plant-oil or bio-based binder chemistries in upstream/downstream applications,
• microencapsulated or protected hardeners for downhole use,
• “slickwater-compatible” systems.

Commercially, infringement exposure is driven less by marketing label (“bio resin,” “eco-friendly,” etc.) and more by whether the hardener protection and downhole cure mechanism match the “hydrolysable encapsulation + dissolution + cure after placement” sequence.

---

What does the claim set imply about Orange Book-style status or FDA exclusivity?

This is not an FDA drug product patent. There is no “Orange Book” exclusivity framework tied to a small-molecule or biologic drug product. The relevant regulatory setting is oilfield services and chemical manufacturing, not drug approval. Competitive freedom-to-operate is therefore primarily driven by patent clearance and contract/IP licensing, not regulatory exclusivity.

---

Litigation and settlement signals: what to look for around this specific claim style?

Without litigation captions and prosecution history, only claim-structure-driven signals can be stated:

• Patents with explicit “does not substantially cure” and “dissolving hydrolysable material” language often become fact-intensive in enforcement.
• Settlement patterns in this space tend to focus on:
  • licensing for specific chemical compositions,
  • carve-outs for specific encapsulation chemistries,
  • operational limits on mixing/coating sequence and residence time.

---

Key Takeaways

• Claim 1’s core is hydrolysable encapsulation of an amine hardening agent plus a delayed cure sequence triggered by dissolution, culminating in a cured resin-coated proppant pack formed in a fracture from slickwater.
• The claim scope is anchored by explicit functional timing and mechanism language (“resin does not substantially cure during coating/prior to placement” in dependent claims; “dissolving the hydrolysable material” in claim 1).
• The highest-risk infringement path for competitors is replicating both the chemistry and the timing mechanism: plant-oil resin + encapsulated amine in hydrolysable material + cure after downhole dissolution.
• Design-arounds are most feasible by changing the trigger/protection mechanism (avoid hydrolysable encapsulation), shifting cure timing (allow substantial cure earlier), or substituting outside the claim-defined resin and hardener categories depending on which independent claim is asserted.

---

FAQs

1) What does “resin compound does not substantially cure” mean in practice for a proppant coating line?

It targets process windows that prevent gelation or curing during manufacture/handling, separating coating-time kinetics from downhole cure kinetics.

2) How do hydrolysable encapsulation and dissolution steps affect enforcement?

They increase the evidentiary focus on the encapsulation material’s dissolution behavior and the downhole release/cure timeline.

3) Can competitors use different vegetable oils or epoxidized derivatives and still infringe?

Yes if they fall within the defined POB resin categories (vegetable oil, epoxidized vegetable oil, epoxide derivatives of monoglycerides, fruit oil) and meet the hydrolysable encapsulated hardener and timing limitations.

4) Does US 10,005,954 cover all slickwater fracturing fluids?

The claims require a fracturing fluid with a slickwater carrier (claim 1) and a resin-coated proppant system; not every slickwater job qualifies unless the specific proppant-coating chemistry and sequence is present.

5) What is the biggest design-around leverage point?

Avoiding either (i) hydrolysable encapsulation of the hardener or (ii) the claimed delayed cure timing sequence.

---

References

1. United States Patent 10,005,954 (claim set provided in prompt).

Details for Patent 10,005,954

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.	PALFORZIA	peanut (arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp	Powder	125696	January 31, 2020		2034-07-14