DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 9/16/25.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20 and 22 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended. Claims 3 is previously presented.
5. Claims 4, 6, 11-12, 14, 19-20 and 22 are original. Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 10, 13, 15-16, 18, 21 and 23-24 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Response: Claim Interpretation 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
6. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the applicant did not respond to the Claim Interpretation 35 U.S.C.
112(f) for the element “a hydrocarbon reservoir control system” in claim 17. The examiner notes that even with the amendment to claim 17, the claim element of “a hydrocarbon reservoir control system” still invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The claim limitation(s) still uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Therefore, the claim element “a hydrocarbon reservoir control system” is still invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that that the recent amendment to the independent claims are not
directed towards an abstract idea because the claims as a whole recite a judicial exception into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer or improving another technology of technical field. The applicant points to the Enfish LLC court case for support as to why the claims improve the functioning of a computer. (Remarks: pages 11-15)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that even with the recent amendment to the claims, the claims are still not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The applicant points to the Enfish court case as support for why the independent claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and that the features of claim 1 improve the functioning of a computer. The examiner notes that in the Enfish case, the Federal Circuit read the claims in light of the specification to determine that a table embodying the claimed features is directed to a “self-referential table”. The specification of the current application is different than the specification of Enfish case, where it doesn’t express how conventional databases or data storage systems are combined with the current language to describe the present invention dividing gridblocks of a reservoir model. Also, the examiner notes with the amendment to the claims, the computer is still functioning the same way. Further, the examiner notes that independent claims 1 and 17 do not include a computer or a component of a computer.
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amendment to the independent claims that states “generating, using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir, wherein the simulation is generated by parallel processing of the gridblocks of the divided reservoir model on a plurality of processors” cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: pages 15-16)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation that states “generating, using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir, wherein the simulation is generated by parallel processing of the gridblocks of the divided reservoir model on a plurality of processors” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended claims of claims 1, 9 and 17 recite improvements to any other technology or technical field as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). The applicant argues the current claims recite a new technique for developing a hydrocarbon reservoir via simulation of a reservoir model that is representative of the inorganic and organic pore networks of the hydrocarbon reservoir. The applicant points to the DDRHoldings, LLC. court case for support as to why the current claims recite an improvement to technology or a technical field. (Remarks: pages 16-18)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant also looks to the DDR Holding case for support as to why the claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes that in the DDR Holding case, it’s determined that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. This is shown where upon a click of an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on a host’s website, the visitor is no longer transported to a third party’s website. The visitor is directed to an automatically generated hybrid web page that combines visual look and feel of elements from the host website and product information from the third-party merchant’s website. Also, the claims of the DDR Holding case recite a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an “outsource provider” that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet. In the current application, the applicant argues that the claims are rooted in computer technology (semiconductor device stress simulation system). However, the current claims aren’t similar to the DDR Holding case, where there isn’t a selection of a product where a user can view that product from a third party.
13. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitations of the independent claims that state “the generating of the divided reservoir model comprising: for each of the columns of gridblocks, dividing each of the gridblocks of the column into: a water-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the inorganic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample” and “and an oil-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the organic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample” are limitations that recite a particular implementation of the combination of dividing each of the gridblocks of the column into both water-wet gridblocks and oil-wet gridblocks that are associated with properties determining specific steps of acquiring nano images and segmentation of layer images. (Remarks: pages 17-18)
14. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation that states “the generating of the divided reservoir model comprising: for each of the columns of gridblocks, dividing each of the gridblocks of the column into: a water-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the inorganic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation is dividing the gridblocks into columns. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation of “and an oil-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the organic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the limitations shown above are abstract, where they don’t include an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
15. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn’t teach the recant amendment that states “isolating a test portion of the rock sample”, “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” and “and determining the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample from the attributes of the grid cells” (Remarks: pages 19-20)
16. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the limitation that states “isolating a test portion of the rock sample”, the examiner notes that the Andersen et al. reference teaches storing a digital image of each portion of the core sample including pores and solid surfaces. The digital core image can reflect pores and rock boundaries of the core sample for each layer of the core sample, see paragraph [0073] of the Andersen et al. reference. This demonstrates that a test portion of the rock sample is isolated.
Also, the limitation that states “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” is taught by the Andersen et al. reference. The Andersen et al. reference teaches performing porous material imaging using X-ray computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy, confocal microscopy, laser scanning fluorescence microscopy or other means that result in either a 2D or a 3D digital representation of that material. The 2D or 3D digital model of a sample of a rock or other porous material is made based on segmentation with quality control by image processing and analysis, multi-scale imaging, and properties simulation. One or more image segmentations are performed to make one or more quality checks, see paragraph [0149] of the Andersen et al. reference.
Also, the examiner notes that the Huang et al. reference teaches the limitation that states “and determining the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample from the attributes of the grid cells”, where there are petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter., see Huang et al. Pg. 2, left col. 1st paragraph “Recent studies show that the shale rock contains different minerals that can be classified into inorganic matter and organic matter [5,32]. The inorganic matter includes quartz, feldspar, dolomite, clays and the organic matter is primarily pyrobitumen [32]. The petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter are obviously distinct and should be treated independently [5].” and Huang et al. Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, 1st paragraph, “To study three-phase flow in shale oil reservoir, a reservoir model shown in Fig. 2 is built with parameters presented in Table 1. The shale matrix is divided into organic matrix and inorganic matrix with different petrophysical properties.”.
Further, the examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,”
but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a hydrocarbon reservoir control system in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper as well as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 9 and 17
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed towards a method, medium and system, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “determining a reservoir model of a hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the reservoir model defining gridblocks that each represent a respective portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining, based on the nano-images of the rock sample, properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample, the properties comprising a degree of connectivity”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells”. This limitation is dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “combining the grid cells of the multiple layers to generate a nano-image of the test portion”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and determining the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample from the attributes of the grid cells”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “generating a divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir that is representative of the inorganic and organic pore networks of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This limitation is dividing the reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the generating of the divided reservoir model comprising: for each of the columns of gridblocks, dividing each of the gridblocks of the column into: a water-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the inorganic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This limitation is dividing each of the gridblocks into columns. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and an oil-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the organic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “such that the column of gridblocks comprises a column of water-wet gridblocks and a column of oil-wet gridblocks”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “for each pair of a water-wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock generated from a gridblock, determining a transmissibility multiplier that corresponds to a degree of connectivity between the water-wet gridblock and the oil-wet gridblock, wherein the divided reservoir model defines the transmissibility multiplier for each pair of a water- wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the isolation is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the surface imaging is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the milling of the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate the drilling is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language includes the additional element of a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more
than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer
component. Accordingly, the additional element of a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the isolation is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the surface imaging is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the milling of the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate the drilling is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Further, the examiner has found a reference, Ameen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,126,340) that teaches acquiring nano-images of rock samples by conducting Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging, which demonstrates that the technique of acquiring nano-images of a rock sample from a hydrocarbon reservoir using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging is well understood, routine and conventional. This can be seen in Col. 16 lines 28-31 of the Ameen et al. reference.
Claim 9
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 9 recites “determining a reservoir model of a hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “the reservoir model defining gridblocks that each represent a respective portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “determining, based on the nano-images of the rock sample, properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample, the properties comprising a degree of connectivity”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells”. This limitation is dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “combining the grid cells of the multiple layers to generate a nano-image of the test portion”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “and determining the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample from the attributes of the grid cells”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “generating a divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir that is representative of the inorganic and organic pore networks of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This limitation is dividing the reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “the generating of the divided reservoir model comprising: for each of the columns of gridblocks, dividing each of the gridblocks of the column into: a water-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the inorganic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This limitation is dividing each of the gridblocks into columns. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “and an oil-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the organic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “such that the column of gridblocks comprises a column of water-wet gridblocks and a column of oil-wet gridblocks”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “for each pair of a water-wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock generated from a gridblock, determining a transmissibility multiplier that corresponds to a degree of connectivity between the water-wet gridblock and the oil-wet gridblock, wherein the divided reservoir model defines the transmissibility multiplier for each pair of a water- wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the isolation is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the surface imaging is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the milling of the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate the drilling is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and medium. The processor and medium would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claim language includes the additional element of a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more
than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer
component. Accordingly, the additional element of a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the isolation is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the surface imaging is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the milling of the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate the drilling is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Further, the examiner has found a reference, Ameen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,126,340) that teaches acquiring nano-images of rock samples by conducting Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging, which demonstrates that the technique of acquiring nano-images of a rock sample from a hydrocarbon reservoir using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging is well understood, routine and conventional. This can be seen in Col. 16 lines 28-31 of the Ameen et al. reference.
Claim 17
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 17 recites “determining a reservoir model of a hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “the reservoir model defining gridblocks that each represent a respective portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “determining, based on the nano-images of the rock sample, properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample, wherein the properties comprising a degree of connectivity”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells”. This limitation is dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “combining the grid cells of the multiple layers to generate a nano-image of the test portion”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “and determining the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample from the attributes of the grid cells”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “generating a divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir that is representative of the inorganic and organic pore networks of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This limitation is dividing the reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “the generating of the divided reservoir model comprising: for each of the columns of gridblocks, dividing each of the gridblocks of the column into: a water-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the inorganic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This limitation is dividing each of the gridblocks into columns. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “and an oil-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the organic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “such that the column of gridblocks comprises a column of water-wet gridblocks and a column of oil-wet gridblocks”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “for each pair of a water-wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock generated from a gridblock, determining a transmissibility multiplier that corresponds to a degree of connectivity between the water-wet gridblock and the oil-wet gridblock, wherein the divided reservoir model defines the transmissibility multiplier for each pair of a water- wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites “and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the isolation is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the surface imaging is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the milling of the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate the drilling is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim recites the additional elements of a hydrocarbon reservoir control system. The hydrocarbon reservoir control system would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claim language includes the additional element of a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more
than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer
component. Accordingly, the additional element of a Focused Ion Beam (FIB) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the isolation is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the surface imaging is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the milling of the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate the drilling is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the hydrocarbon reservoir control system amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Further, the examiner has found a reference, Ameen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,126,340) that teaches acquiring nano-images of rock samples by conducting Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging, which demonstrates that the technique of acquiring nano-images of a rock sample from a hydrocarbon reservoir using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging is well understood, routine and conventional. This can be seen in Col. 16 lines 28-31 of the Ameen et al. reference.
Claims 3, 11 and 19
Dependent claims 3, 11 and 19 recite “wherein the reservoir model comprises a three-dimensional grid of gridblocks that represents a portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 4, 12 and 20
Dependent claims 4, 12 and 20 recite “determining that the portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir represented by the gridblocks has mixed wettability, wherein the generation of the divided model is conducted in response to determining that the portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir represented by the gridblocks has mixed wettability.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6, 14 and 22
Dependent claims 6, 14 and 22 recite “generating, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a field development plan (FDP) for the hydrocarbon reservoir.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20 and 22 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as being unpatentable over online Reference Compositional simulation of three-phase flow in mixed-wet shale oil reservoir, written by Huang et al. (from IDS dated 11/19/21) in view of Andersen et al. (WO 2015/084533) (from IDS dated 11/19/21) in view of Dvorkin et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0308831) in further view of Williams et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0231908).
With respect to claim 1, Huang et al. discloses “A method of developing a hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Huang et al. (Abstract “Since organic matter is a dispersed phase inside inorganic matter, fluids in organic matrix must flow through inorganic matrix before reaching the fractures. The dispersed nature of organic matter makes the relative permeability in inorganic matrix a dominant factor that controls the overall production in shale oil reservoir. The effect of relative permeability in organic matrix however has limited effect”, Pg. 1, Introduction, 1st paragraph, “Shale oil reservoirs have been a major contributor to US oil production in recent years due to the unconventional resource revolution [1]. It is reported that the technically recoverable shale oil resource can reach 345 billion barrels around the world [2]”)];
“the method comprising: determining a reservoir model of a hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2.1 Reservoir model built by multi-porosity and EDFM approach, 1st paragraph, “To model the fractured shale reservoir considering mixed wettability, the multi-porosity model and EDFM approach are applied.”, Huang et al. Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, 1st paragraph, “To study three-phase flow in shale oil reservoir, a reservoir model shown in Fig. 2 is built with parameters presented in Table 1”, Fig. 2)];
“the reservoir model defining gridblocks that each represent a respective portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2.1 Reservoir model built by multi-porosity and EDFM approach, 1st paragraph, “To model the fractured shale reservoir considering mixed wettability, the multi-porosity model and EDFM approach are applied.”, Huang et al. Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, “To study three-phase flow in shale oil reservoir, a reservoir model shown in Fig. 2 is built with parameters presented in Table 1”, Fig. 2)];
“acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 1st paragraph, “Recent studies show that the shale rock contains different minerals that can be classified into inorganic matter and organic matter [5,32]. The inorganic matter includes quartz, feldspar, dolomite, clays and the organic matter is primarily pyrobitumen [32]. The petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter are obviously distinct and should be treated independently [5]. From the FIB/SEM image in Fig. 1, it is seen that micropores primarily exist within the inorganic matter, while nanopores are widely distributed in organic matter.”, Fig. 1)];
“wherein acquiring nano-images of the rock sample comprises conducting Focused Ion Beam (FIB) or Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging of the rock sample to acquire FIB or SEM images of the rock sample” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 1st paragraph, “Recent studies show that the shale rock contains different minerals that can be classified into inorganic matter and organic matter [5,32]. The inorganic matter includes quartz, feldspar, dolomite, clays and the organic matter is primarily pyrobitumen [32]. The petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter are obviously distinct and should be treated independently [5]. From the FIB/SEM image in Fig. 1, it is seen that micropores primarily exist within the inorganic matter, while nanopores are widely distributed in organic matter.”, Fig. 1)];
“determining, based on the nano-images of the rock sample, properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample, the properties comprises a degree of connectivity” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 1st paragraph, “Recent studies show that the shale rock contains different minerals that can be classified into inorganic matter and organic matter [5,32]. The inorganic matter includes quartz, feldspar, dolomite, clays and the organic matter is primarily pyrobitumen [32]. The petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter are obviously distinct and should be treated independently [5]. From the FIB/SEM image in Fig. 1, it is seen that micropores primarily exist within the inorganic matter, while nanopores are widely distributed in organic matter.”, Huang et al. (Pg. 2, right col., sec. 2.1 Reservoir model built by multi-porosity and EDFM approach, 1st paragraph, “To model the fractured shale reservoir considering mixed wettability, etc.”, Fig. 1, The organic matter is a dispersed phase inside the inorganic matter, where the connectivity between organic matter is poor. This demonstrates that there’s a degree of connectivity of the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and the properties an organic pore network of the rock sample)];
“and determining the properties of an inorganic pore network of the rock sample and properties of an organic pore network of the rock sample from the attributes of the grid cells” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, left col. 1st paragraph “Recent studies show that the shale rock contains different minerals that can be classified into inorganic matter and organic matter [5,32]. The inorganic matter includes quartz, feldspar, dolomite, clays and the organic matter is primarily pyrobitumen [32]. The petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter are obviously distinct and should be treated independently [5]. From the FIB/SEM image in Fig. 1,
it is seen that micropores primarily exist within the inorganic matter, while nanopores are widely distributed in organic matter. Thus, the organic matter has much smaller pore sizes and lower permeability than the inorganic matter.”, Huang et al. (Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, 1st paragraph, “To study three-phase flow in shale oil reservoir, a reservoir model shown in Fig. 2 is built with parameters presented in Table 1. The shale matrix is divided into organic matrix and inorganic matrix with different petrophysical properties. The organic matrix has a smaller pore size, lower permeability and lower initial water saturation due to its hydrophobic condition.”)];
“generating a divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir that is representative of the inorganic and organic pore networks of the hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 1st paragraph, “Recent studies show that the shale rock contains different minerals that can be classified into inorganic matter and organic matter [5,32]. The inorganic matter includes quartz, feldspar, dolomite, clays and the organic matter is primarily pyrobitumen [32]. The petrophysical properties of organic and inorganic matter are obviously distinct and should be treated independently [5]. From the FIB/SEM image in Fig. 1, it is seen that micropores primarily exist within the inorganic matter, while nanopores are widely distributed in organic matter.”, Huang et al. Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, 1st paragraph, “To study three-phase flow in shale oil reservoir, a reservoir model shown in Fig. 2 is built with parameters presented in Table 1”)];
“a water-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the inorganic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 6, sec. 4.1 Production of shale oil reservoir under mixed-wet condition, 1st paragraph, “In this part, the mixed-wet condition is considered explicitly in shale matrix. Specifically, the organic matrix is set as oil-wet while the inorganic matrix is water-wet. The water-oil relative permeabilities in organic and inorganic matrix are using the ones presented in Fig. 4. Besides, the oil-gas relative permeabilities in Fig. 5b are applied. Fig. 6 presents the pressure distributions, water saturations, oil saturations and gas saturations in both organic and inorganic matrix, after ten years of production.”, Fig. 6)];
“an oil-wet gridblock associated with the properties of the organic pore network determined based on the nano-images of the rock sample” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 6, sec. 4.1 Production of shale oil reservoir under mixed-wet condition, 1st paragraph, “In this part, the mixed-wet condition is considered explicitly in shale matrix. Specifically, the organic matrix is set as oil-wet while the inorganic matrix is water-wet. The water-oil relative permeabilities in organic and inorganic matrix are using the ones presented in Fig. 4. Besides, the oil-gas relative permeabilities in Fig. 5b are applied. Fig. 6 presents the pressure distributions, water saturations, oil saturations and gas saturations in both organic and inorganic matrix, after ten years of production.”, Fig. 6)];
“such that the column of gridblocks comprises a column of water-wet gridblocks and a column of oil-wet gridblocks” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 6, sec. 4.1 Production of shale oil reservoir under mixed-wet condition, 1st paragraph, “In this part, the mixed-wet condition is considered explicitly in shale matrix. Specifically, the organic matrix is set as oil-wet while the inorganic matrix is water-wet. The water-oil relative permeabilities in organic and inorganic matrix are using the ones presented in Fig. 4. Besides, the oil-gas relative permeabilities in Fig. 5b are applied. Fig. 6 presents the pressure distributions, water saturations, oil saturations and gas saturations in both organic and inorganic matrix, after ten years of production.”, Fig. 6d)];
“for each pair of a water-wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock generated from a gridblock, determining a transmissibility multiplier that corresponds to a degree of connectivity between the water-wet gridblock and the oil-wet gridblock, wherein the divided reservoir model defines the transmissibility multiplier for each pair of a water- wet gridblock and an oil-wet gridblock.” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2.1 Reservoir model built by multi-porosity and EDFM approach, 1st paragraph, “To model the fractured shale reservoir considering mixed wettability, the multi-porosity model and EDFM approach are applied.”, Huang et al. Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, “To study three-phase flow in shale oil reservoir, a reservoir model shown in Fig. 2 is built with parameters presented in Table 1”, Huang et al. Pg. 3, left col. 1st paragraph, “Apart from shale matrix, description of the complex fracture systems is also critical for shale reservoir modeling. In this work, the enhanced embedded discrete fracture model (EDFM) is applied to model fractures explicitly [41,42]. Hydraulic/natural fractures with arbitrary strikes and angles can be efficiently described by EDFM. When implementing EDFM, three more kinds of non-neighbor connections need to be determined including the ones between fractures and matrix grids, between two neighboring fracture grids in the same fracture and between two intersecting fracture grids from different fractures [41]. The transmissibility for the three types of connections can be generally written as [41], etc.”, In the reservoir simulation, transmissibility is used to model the mass transfer between grid cells. There exist three kinds of interblock transmissibilities in shale matrix after subdivision. The transmissibility within organic matrix is set as zero due to the dispersed nature of organic matter. The transmissibility within inorganic matrix is given by equation 1 in section 2.1 of the Huang et al. reference. The connection between organic and inorganic matrix is a kind of non-neighbor connection and transmissibility can be calculated by equation 2 in section 2.1 of the Huang et al. reference)];
“and generating, using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir.” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 6, sec. 4 Results and discussion, “In this section, the three-phase flow in mixed-wet shale oil reservoir is modeled using the proposed approach. Phase saturations in organic and inorganic matrix are obtained and production rates of water, oil and gas are particularly analyzed. By changing the volume fraction of organic matrix, effects of TOC are evaluated explicitly. Simulations results under mixed-wet condition are then compared to those where a uniform wettability is applied.”)];
While Huang et al. teaches developing a hydrocarbon reservoir, Huang et al. does not explicitly disclose “and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir; wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample; for each of multiple layers of the test portion: conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion; and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well; and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir”
Andersen et al. discloses “and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0043] “The digital core image may be segmented using a variety of approaches to obtain segmented digital core images. A statistical analysis of each approach is performed using the segmented digital core images to select the most suitable approach. From a digital core image that is segmented using the selected approach a digital core model is generated.”)];
“wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0073] “The data repository (1610) includes functionality to store a digital core image (1618) and a digital core model (1620). The digital core image (1618) of the core sample (1604) is represented in accordance with the definition in the "Image" section above. Specifically, the digital core image is an image of each portion of the core sample (1604) including pores and solid surfaces. Thus, the digital core image (1618) may reflect pores and rock boundaries of the core sample for each layer of the core sample.”)];
“for each of multiple layers of the test portion: conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0149] “Porous material imaging may be performed using X-ray computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy, confocal microscopy, laser scanning fluorescence microscopy or other means that result in either a 2D or a 3D digital representation of that material. A 2D or 3D digital model of a sample of a rock or other porous material is made based on segmentation with quality control by image processing and analysis, multi-scale imaging, and properties simulation. One or more image segmentations are performed to make one or more quality checks.”)];
“and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0097] “In block 1721, field operations are performed based on the simulations in accordance with one or more embodiments. Specifically, the digital core modeling system and/or user may transmit information and manage the physical equipment at the field according to the simulations. For example, the scenario that results in the best possible predicted output may be performed in the field. For an oilfield, the field operations and the example scenarios that may be applied may include scenarios that define the amount and type of injection fluid, drilling speed, drilling location, and/or other operations of the oilfield.”)];
“and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0006] “A simulation test may be performed on the digital core model to obtain a model test result and an oilfield operation may be performed based on the model test result. The oilfield operation may comprise a survey operation and/or a wellbore operation.”, Andersen et al. paragraph [0097] “In block 1721, field operations are performed based on the simulations in accordance with one or more embodiments. Specifically, the digital core modeling system and/or user may transmit information and manage the physical equipment at the field according to the simulations. For example, the scenario that results in the best possible predicted output may be performed in the field. For an oilfield, the field operations and the example scenarios that may be applied may include scenarios that define the amount and type of injection fluid, drilling speed, drilling location, and/or other operations of the oilfield.”, The examiner considers the field operation to be the drilling of the well in a hydrocarbon reservoir, since the field operation includes drilling speed, drilling location and other operations of the oilfield)];
Huang et al. and Andersen et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field
endeavor of analyzing a hydrocarbon reservoir.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Huang et al. of developing a hydrocarbon reservoir by incorporating and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir; wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample; for each of multiple layers of the test portion: conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion; and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well; and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir as taught by Andersen et al. for the purpose of analyzing a digital core image obtained from a sample.
Huang et al. in view of Andersen et al. teaches and columns of the gridblocks that each represent a vertical segment of the hydrocarbon reservoir; wherein acquiring nano-images of a rock sample acquired from the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises: isolating a test portion of the rock sample; for each of multiple layers of the test portion: conducting surface imaging of an exposed surface of a layer of the test portion; and identifying, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a location and a trajectory for a well; and drilling, based on the location and the trajectory, the well in the hydrocarbon reservoir using a drill bit boring into a formation containing the hydrocarbon reservoir.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Andersen et al. teaches that by analyzing a digital core image obtained from a sample, the ability to run a simulation test on a digital core model to obtain a model test result, can be accomplished, where an oilfield operation is performed based on the model test result (Andersen et al. (paragraph [0006])).
While the combination of Huang et al. and Andersen et al. teaches acquiring nano-images of the rock sample that comprises conducting Focused Ion Beam (FIB) or Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging of the rock sample to acquire FIB or SEM images of the rock sample, Huang et al. and Andersen et al. do not explicitly disclose “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers; wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells; and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells;”
Dvorkin et al. discloses “and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers” as [Dvorkin et al. (paragraph [0067] “The rock sample is scanned, e.g., with a Focused Ion Beam-Scanning Electron Microscope (FIB-SEM) system, to create a 2D digital image (step 26) and at step 28 the image is segmented into pixels representing pore spaces 12 and pixels representing mineral matrix 14 (recall FIGS. 1B and 1C). Scanning and segmenting operations are directly adapted from 3D operations, but are conducted in a plurality of single 2D slices or in subsamples of a 2D single slice as set out below in greater detail. FIB-SEM systems are commercial available which can be used. The FIB component of the FIB-SEM system can act like a nanoscale scalpel to remove very thin slices of material from a sample, while the SEM captures images of the sample's structure at each slice.”, The examiner considers the slices of the rock samples to be the milling of the surface of a layer of test portion of the sample, since the rock sample is broken down from it originally size to smaller sizes)];
“wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells” as [Dvorkin et al. (paragraph [0067] “The rock sample is scanned, e.g., with a Focused Ion Beam-Scanning Electron Microscope (FIB-SEM) system, to create a 2D digital image (step 26) and at step 28 the image is segmented into pixels representing pore spaces 12 and pixels representing mineral matrix 14 (recall FIGS. 1B and 1C). Scanning and segmenting operations are directly adapted from 3D operations, but are conducted in a plurality of single 2D slices or in subsamples of a 2D single slice as set out below in greater detail. FIB-SEM systems are commercial available which can be used. The FIB component of the FIB-SEM system can act like a nanoscale scalpel to remove very thin slices of material from a sample, while the SEM captures images of the sample's structure at each slice.”, Dvorkin et al. paragraph [0068] “For purposes herein, "segmentation" means a process of partitioning a digital image into multiple segments (sets of pixels). Image segmentation is typically used to locate objects and boundaries (lines, curves, etc.) in images. In segmentation of porous rock, for example, it can be used to allocate pore space and one or more non-porous phase regions and their boundaries.”)];
“and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells” as [Dvorkin et al. (paragraph [0068] “In segmentation of porous rock, for example, it can be used to allocate pore space and one or more non-porous phase regions and their boundaries. Image segmentation is the process of assigning a label to the pixels in an image such that pixels with the same label share certain visual characteristics.”, The examiner considers assigning a label to the pixels that are the result of segmentation, to be the assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells, since the pixels with the same label share certain visual characteristics. Also, the examiner notes that the term “attribute” is not defined within the claim language.)];
Huang et al., Andersen et al. and Dvorkin et al. are analogous art because they are from
the same field endeavor of analyzing a hydrocarbon reservoir.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Huang et al. and Andersen et al. of acquiring nano-images of the rock sample that comprises conducting Focused Ion Beam (FIB) or Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) imaging of the rock sample to acquire FIB or SEM images of the rock sample by incorporating and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers; wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells; and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells as taught by Dvorkin et al. for the purpose of estimating the property of a rock.
Huang et al. in view of Andersen et al. in further view of Dvorkin et al. teaches and milling the exposed surface of the layer of the test portion to expose a surface of the next layer of the test portion to generate a set of layer images for the multiple layers; wherein the determining comprises: conducting segmenting of the set of layer images, the segmenting comprising: dividing each of the layer images into a grid of grid cells; and assigning an attribute to each of the grid cells.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Dvorkin et al. teaches that by using two-dimensional images to estimate the property of a rock, the ability to obtain quality estimates of fluid transport properties, such as one or more of absolute permeability, relative permeability, formation factor, etc. can be accomplished. This allows for a way to apply digital rock physics without the rigors of creating, synthesizing, or otherwise obtaining 3D volumes (Dvorkin et al. paragraphs [0011] – [0012]).
While the combination of Huang et al., Andersen et al. and Dvorkin et al. teaches generating, using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir, Huang et al., Andersen et al. and Dvorkin et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the simulation is generated by parallel processing of the gridblocks of the divided reservoir model on a plurality of processors”
Williams et al. discloses “wherein the simulation is generated by parallel processing of the gridblocks of the divided reservoir model on a plurality of processors” as [Williams et al. (paragraph [0042] “In some embodiments, the hydrocarbon flow pathways associated with the kerogen-wet porosity and related micro-fractures (non-Darcy flow) are assumed to be separate and distinct flow pathways from the water-wet porosity (Darcy flow), and that the separate flow pathways do not intermingle. Thus, until the hydrocarbons reach the fracture porosity, the flow through each system is separate. For these reasons, in some embodiments the two distinct systems are separately modeled for the same model volume. FIG. 3 does not show the water-wet porosity so as not to unduly complicate the figure, but one having ordinary skill in the art now understanding the modeling of flow associated with the kerogen-wet porosity, could implement modeling of flow associated with the parallel water-wet porosity (e.g., water-wet in an affinity sense, no absorption) using knowledge of Darcy flow modeling techniques.”, Williams et al. paragraph [0045] “Given a computing system with sufficient computing functionality, an entire shale formation may be modeled using the parallel kerogen-wet and water-wet systems described above.”, Williams et al. paragraph [0052] “The main processor 710 may be a single processor core device, or a processor implementing multiple processor cores.”, The examiner notes that kerogen is a mixture of hydrocarbon compounds that is the primary organic compound of oil shale, see attachment of NPL reference of the definition of kerogen)];
Huang et al., Andersen et al., Dvorkin et al. and Williams et al. are analogous art because
they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing a hydrocarbon reservoir.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Huang et al., Andersen et al. and Dvorkin et al. of generating, using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir by incorporating wherein the simulation is generated by parallel processing of the gridblocks of the divided reservoir model on a plurality of processors as taught by Williams et al. for the purpose of modeling hydrocarbon flow from kerogens in a hydrocarbon bearing formation.
Huang et al. in view of Andersen et al. in further view of Dvorkin et al. in further view of Williams et al. teaches generating, using the divided reservoir model of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir by incorporating wherein the simulation is generated by parallel processing of the gridblocks of the divided reservoir model on a plurality of processors.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Williams et al. teaches that by modeling hydrocarbon flow from kerogens in a hydrocarbon bearing formation, the ability estimate future production from shale formations can be accomplished. This allows companies to plan for future production of a reservoir (Williams et al. paragraph [0002], paragraph [0020]).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Huang et al., Andersen et al., Dvorkin et al. and Williams et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Huang et al. further discloses “wherein the reservoir model comprises a three-dimensional grid of gridblocks that represents a portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2.1 Reservoir model built by multi-porosity and EDFM approach, 1st paragraph, “To model the fractured shale reservoir considering mixed wettability, the multi-porosity model and EDFM approach are applied.”, Huang et al. Pg. 5, sec. 3 Simulation setup, 2nd paragraph, “The three-phase relative permeability in shale matrix is obtained by using a two-step method. In the first step, the oil-water relative permeability is obtained by digital rock analysis. Fig. 3 presents the digital rock sample of a shale rock. The oil-water relative permeability is then calculated by directly simulating two-phase flow on the digital rock, Figs. 2 and 3)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Huang et al., Andersen et al., Dvorkin et al. and Williams et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Huang et al. further discloses “determining that the portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir represented by the gridblocks has mixed wettability, wherein the generation of the divided model is conducted in response to determining that the portion of the hydrocarbon reservoir represented by the gridblocks has mixed wettability” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 6, sec. 4.1 Production of shale oil reservoir under mixed-wet condition, 1st paragraph, “In this part, the mixed-wet condition is considered explicitly in shale matrix. Specifically, the organic matrix is set as oil-wet while the inorganic matrix is water-wet. The water-oil relative permeabilities in organic and inorganic matrix are using the ones presented in Fig. 4. Besides, the oil-gas relative permeabilities in Fig. 5b are applied. Fig. 6 presents the pressure distributions, water saturations, oil saturations and gas saturations in both organic and inorganic matrix, after ten years of production.”)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Huang et al., Andersen et al., Dvorkin et al. and Williams et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Andersen et al. further discloses “generating, based on the simulation of the hydrocarbon reservoir, a field development plan (FDP) for the hydrocarbon reservoir.” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0054] “As described above, fluid may be injected through an injection wellbore, such as the wellbore 130 to gain additional amounts of hydrocarbon production. Fluid may be injected to sweep hydrocarbons to producing wells and/or to maintain reservoir pressure by balancing extracted hydrocarbons with injected fluid.”, A field development plan (FDP) outlines procedures for extracting hydrocarbons. By the hydrocarbons being extracted as taught in the Andersen reference, demonstrates that there was an FDP)];
With respect to claim 9, Andersen et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0068] “For example, as shown in FIG. 20, the computing system 2000 may include one or more computer processor(s) 2002, associated memory 2004, etc.”, Andersen et al. paragraph [0069] “Software instructions in the form of computer readable program code to perform one or more embodiments may be stored, in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently, on a non-transitory computer readable medium such as a CD, DVD, storage device, a diskette, a tape, flash memory, physical memory, or any other computer readable storage medium”, Fig. 20)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect claims 11-12 and 14, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 3-4 and 6 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 17, Andersen et al. discloses “A hydrocarbon reservoir development system” as [Andersen et al. (paragraph [0064] “The digital core modeling system 1602 includes functionality to generate a digital core model 1620 of the core sample 1604 and use the digital core model 1620 to perform various simulations. The digital core modeling system 1602 may also include functionality to perform various tests on the core sample 1604 in order to identify various properties of the core sample 1604 and perform simulations on the core sample 1604. The digital core modeling system 1602 may include hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect claims 19-20 and 22, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 3-4 and 6 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights