Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
2. The amendment filed on 04/15/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 15, and 17-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 1, 4-6, 8-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, 12 and 20, they recite the limitation “determining the model outputs are within a sensitivity threshold relative to the model outputs determined during a previous iteration” which is unclear. The “determining” step cannot be evaluated on the first pass through the recited iterative loop because there is no previous iteration. The claim does not specify whether the first iteration is silently exempt from this step, whether some seed comparison value is implicit, or whether the loop is required to begin at iteration two.
As per Claim 1, 12 and 20, they recite the limitation “the second set of variable values” which denotes two distinct sets at different points in the claim.
As per Claim 6, it recites the limitation “the second set of variable values” in line 3 which is unclear what the limitation refers as claim 1 recites two distinct sets of second set of variable values” at different points. The phrase is first introduced in “estimating a second set of variable values of the subsidence map using an automated calibration algorithm,” producing a set of size N. The claim then recites “redefining one variable value among the second set of variable values as a fixed value,” which moves one element out of the set. The subsequent limitations “updating the subsidence map with the second set of variable values, wherein the second set of variable values does not comprise the fixed value” use the same definite-article phrase to denote the post-redefining set of size N−1. Thus, it is unclear whether the reference is to the pre-freezing N-element set or to the post-freezing (N−1)-element set in the claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0308934 A1) in view of Koeck (“Improving a Numerical Sequence Stratigraphic Model through a Global Sensitivity Analysis; Giant Carbonate Offshore Field, Abu Dhabi”).
As per Claim 1 and 12, Li teaches a method/non-transitory computer readable medium of calibrating a subsidence map ([0005]-[0009], [0144]-[0145] all Figs), the method comprising:
selecting a stratigraphic model that models geological processes within a geological formation over a geological time ([0031]-[0032], [0085] “a stratigraphic model, expressed in terms of geological time coordinates, is received.”);
defining the subsidence map with a first set of variable values ([0034] “a history of deformation and movement, such as subsidence, may also be used as parameters for the forward depositional simulation to obtain realistic geological results. For some forward numerical models, the spatial and temporal distribution of physical properties and their boundary conditions can also be used as model parameters.”);
obtaining target outputs measured from the geological formation ([0042] “The techniques described in this document provide an automated way to perform calibration of forward depositional models based on available prior observation data (sometimes expressed as well logs).”);
iteratively, until a residual is below a threshold ([0040] “the process is run forward until the iteration meets various predetermined criteria, such as by determining that the mismatch value is less than a predetermined amount,”):
determining model outputs from the stratigraphic model by inputting the subsidence map into the stratigraphic model ([0058] “In the latter iteration(s), the identified parameter set from the optimization procedure is used to construct a parameter file and run the forward stratigraphic modeling process.”),
determining the residual between the target outputs and the model outputs using an objective function (
PNG
media_image1.png
142
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
estimating a second set of variable values of the subsidence map using an automated calibration algorithm ([0040] "A kriging surrogate modeling technique is then used to rank and identify relationships (correlations) between the initial collection of LHS designs and the mismatch values calculated from comparisons of models and wells"),
determining the model outputs are within a sensitivity threshold relative to the model outputs determined during a previous iteration ([0072] “the new model's improvement over the previous model is small enough, then at 452 a new mismatch value is calculated”).
Li fails to teach explicitly redefining one variable value among the second set of variable values as a fixed value, and
updating the subsidence map with the second set of variable values, wherein the second set of variable values does not comprise the fixed value; and
predicting, using the stratigraphic model and the updated subsidence map, a position and a composition of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the geological formation.
Koeck teaches redefining one variable value among the second set of variable values as a fixed value (Abstract "A second set of simulations was then launched considering only the most influential parameters and their refined ranges. Other parameters were assigned with constant values used in the reference case model"; section Generation of multiple realizations), and
updating the subsidence map with the second set of variable values, wherein the second set of variable values does not comprise the fixed value (Abstract "A second set of simulations was then launched considering only the most influential parameters and their refined ranges. Other parameters were assigned with constant values used in the reference case model"; section Generation of multiple realizations); and
predicting, using the stratigraphic model and the updated subsidence map, a position and a composition of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the geological formation (Abstract "the innovative application of these techniques on forward stratigraphic modelling of a giant carbonate field from offshore Abu Dhabi, leading to the generation of multiple realizations to be used as the starting point for better geomodel construction"; section Generation of multiple realizations). In particular, Koeck describes a global sensitivity analysis applied to forward stratigraphic modelling that identifies the most influential parameters and assigns the remaining parameters constant values used in the reference case model wherein launching a second set of simulations that considers only the most influential parameters and their refined ranges, with the other parameters held at constant values from the reference case to predict reservoir-scale facies distribution in a giant carbonate offshore field i.e., a hydrocarbon-bearing accumulation, through multiple calibrated realizations of the carbonate field.
Li and Koeck are analogous art because they are both related to a geological formation simulation and modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Koeck into Li’s invention to provide a handful of acceptable multi-realizations ensuring the geological and sedimentological consistency and accuracy with the attention focused on controlling those factors/parameters with appropriate specifications (Koeck: pg 8, Conclusion).
As per Claim 8 and 17, Li teaches wherein a type of the model outputs and a type of the target outputs comprise at least one of: a sediment thickness map; a sediment gradient map; a sediment volume map; or a rock classification map ([0032] “stratigraphic spatial architectures (such as the thickness of each formation), the lithology, or the geological facies within formations"”, [0061] “formation thickness, continuous variable such as permeability and porosity and categorical variables such as lithofacies types or rock types").
As per Claim 9, Li teaches wherein the type of the model outputs and the type of the target outputs are identical (the mismatch operator compares the simulated and observed values of the same data type, i.e., the model outputs and the target outputs share the same type, yielding a per-type difference
PNG
media_image1.png
142
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
As per Claim 20, Li teaches system of calibrating a subsidence map ([0005]-[0009] all Figs), the system comprising:
a geodetic surveying system ([0038] “measurements obtained while drilling a well (a well log).”; [0118] “prior data from the deposition model can be collected through seismic surveys, well logs, and others processes.”); and
a computer system ([0144]-[014] “computer”) configured to:
receive a stratigraphic model based on geological formation data, wherein the stratigraphic model models geological processes within a geological formation over a geological time ([0031]-[0032], [0085] “a stratigraphic model, expressed in terms of geological time coordinates, is received.”),
receive the subsidence map with a first set of variable values based on topographical data acquired using the geodetic surveying system ([0034]-[0035], [0038] “Model 310 is based on observed data, for example, measurements obtained while drilling a well (a well log)”),
receive target outputs based on the geological formation data ([0042] “The techniques described in this document provide an automated way to perform calibration of forward depositional models based on available prior observation data (sometimes expressed as well logs).”,
iteratively, until a residual is below a threshold ([0040] “the process is run forward until the iteration meets various predetermined criteria, such as by determining that the mismatch value is less than a predetermined amount,”):
determine model outputs from the stratigraphic model by inputting the subsidence map into the stratigraphic model ([0058] “In the latter iteration(s), the identified parameter set from the optimization procedure is used to construct a parameter file and run the forward stratigraphic modeling process.”);
determine the residual between the target outputs and the model outputs using an objective function (
PNG
media_image1.png
142
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
estimate a second set of variable values of the subsidence map using an automated calibration algorithm ([0040] "A kriging surrogate modeling technique is then used to rank and identify relationships (correlations) between the initial collection of LHS designs and the mismatch values calculated from comparisons of models and wells");
determine the model outputs are within a sensitivity threshold relative to the model outputs determined during a previous iteration ([0072] “the new model's improvement overthe previous model is small enough, then at 452 a new mismatch value is calculated”).
Li fails to teach explicitly redefine one variable value among the second set of variable values as a fixed value; and
update the subsidence map with the second set of variable values, wherein the second set of variable values does not comprise the fixed value, and
predict, using the stratigraphic model and the updated subsidence map, a position and a composition of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the geological formation.
Koeck teaches redefine one variable value among the second set of variable values as a fixed value (Abstract "A second set of simulations was then launched considering only the most influential parameters and their refined ranges. Other parameters were assigned with constant values used in the reference case model"; section Generation of multiple realizations), and
update the subsidence map with the second set of variable values, wherein the second set of variable values does not comprise the fixed value (Abstract "A second set of simulations was then launched considering only the most influential parameters and their refined ranges. Other parameters were assigned with constant values used in the reference case model"; section Generation of multiple realizations); and
predict, using the stratigraphic model and the updated subsidence map, a position and a composition of a hydrocarbon reservoir within the geological formation (Abstract "the innovative application of these techniques on forward stratigraphic modelling of a giant carbonate field from offshore Abu Dhabi, leading to the generation of multiple realizations to be used as the starting point for better geomodel construction"; section Generation of multiple realizations). In particular, Koeck describes a global sensitivity analysis applied to forward stratigraphic modelling that identifies the most influential parameters and assigns the remaining parameters constant values used in the reference case model wherein launching a second set of simulations that considers only the most influential parameters and their refined ranges, with the other parameters held at constant values from the reference case to predict reservoir-scale facies distribution in a giant carbonate offshore field i.e., a hydrocarbon-bearing accumulation, through multiple calibrated realizations of the carbonate field.
Li and Koeck are analogous art because they are both related to a geological formation simulation and modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Koeck into Li’s invention to provide a handful of acceptable multi-realizations ensuring the geological and sedimentological consistency and accuracy with the attention focused on controlling those factors/parameters with appropriate specifications (Koeck: pg 8, Conclusion).
5. Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0308934 A1) in view of Koeck (“Improving a Numerical Sequence Stratigraphic Model through a Global Sensitivity Analysis; Giant Carbonate Offshore Field, Abu Dhabi”), further in view of Doherty (“Approaches to Highly Parameterized Inversion: Pilot-Point Theory, Guidelines, and Research Directions”).
Li as modified by Koeck teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 20 above.
As per Claim 4, and 15, as modified by Koeck fails to teach explicitly wherein defining the subsidence map comprises using a pilot points method or a weighted linear combination method.
Doherty teaches wherein defining the subsidence map comprises using a pilot points method or a weighted linear combination method (Abstract "Pilot points serve as surrogate parameters at which values are estimated in the inverse-modeling process, and their values are interpolated onto the modeling domain in such a way that heterogeneity can be represented at a much lower computational cost than trying to estimate parameters in every cell of a model", pg 8-9).
Li, Koeck, and Doherty are analogous art because they are all related to a geological formation simulation and modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Doherty into Li as modified by Koeck’s invention to provide a handful of acceptable multi-realizations ensuring the geological and sedimentological consistency and accuracy with the attention focused on controlling those factors/parameters with appropriate specifications (Koeck: pg 8, Conclusion) and to provide a predictable benefit of representing the heterogeneity of the subsidence field at a substantially lower computational cost than estimating an independent variable for every cell of a model (Doherty: Abstract).
As per Claim 5, Li as modified by Koeck fails to teach explicitly wherein defining the subsidence map comprises interpolating a first set of interpolated values from a set of fixed values and the first set of variable values.
Doherty teaches wherein defining the subsidence map comprises interpolating a first set of interpolated values from a set of fixed values and the first set of variable values (Abstract "their values are interpolated onto the modeling domain”, pg 8-9).
As per Claim 6, Li as modified by Koeck fails to teach explicitly wherein updating the subsidence map comprises interpolating a second set of interpolated values from the fixed value and the second set of variable values.
Doherty teaches wherein updating the subsidence map comprises interpolating a second set of interpolated values from the fixed value and the second set of variable values (Abstract "their values are interpolated onto the modeling domain”, pg 8-9).
6. Claims 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0308934 A1) in view of Koeck (“Improving a Numerical Sequence Stratigraphic Model through a Global Sensitivity Analysis; Giant Carbonate Offshore Field, Abu Dhabi”), further in view of Cross et al. (US 20020099504 A1).
Li as modified by Koeck teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 20 above.
As per Claim 10 and 18, Li as modified by Koeck fails to teach explicitly wherein the objective function comprises at least one of a sum of square difference equation, a mean absolute difference equation, a least absolute difference equation, or a mean percentage difference equation.
Cross et al. teaches wherein the objective function comprises at least one of a sum of square difference equation, a mean absolute difference equation, a least absolute difference equation, or a mean percentage difference equation ([0093] “typical objective functions (also known as loss surfaces or error surfaces)… sum of the root mean square of predicted value”).
Li, Koeck, and Cross et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a geological formation simulation and modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Cross et al. into Li as modified by Koeck’s invention to provide a handful of acceptable multi-realizations ensuring the geological and sedimentological consistency and accuracy with the attention focused on controlling those factors/parameters with appropriate specifications (Koeck: pg 8, Conclusion) and to provide correct simulations which minimize errors in n-dimensional parameter space (Cross et al.: [0093]).
As per Claim 11 and 19, Li as modified by Koeck fails to teach explicitly wherein the automated calibration algorithm comprises at least one of a gradient descent algorithm or a non-linear least squares algorithm.
Cross et al. teaches wherein the automated calibration algorithm comprises at least one of a gradient descent algorithm or a non-linear least squares algorithm ([0019] “inversion techniques that are suitable for use in the disclosed invention are the genetic, the simulated annealing, the Monte Carlo, the gradient descent, and the technique designed by Ian Lerche.”).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument - Li (US 2020/0308934 A1) in view of Koeck (“Improving a Numerical Sequence Stratigraphic Model through a Global Sensitivity Analysis; Giant Carbonate Offshore Field, Abu Dhabi”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights