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