DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 have been presented for examination. Claim 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(1)
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(a) rejection. Therefore, it is withdrawn. However, a new 112(a) rejection is included in the instant office action necessitated by the amendments (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112).
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(b) rejections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “In this manner, claims include automatic adjustment of drilling operations, which along with the other steps in the claim, is used for optimizing "drilling operation [that] are changed in real time in response to the updating. For example, systems used to control drilling equipment can be provided with updated parameters based on suggested changes," thereby achieving an improved technological result.” (emphasis added)
Applicants argues that drilling operations are changed in real time (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Examiner notes that neither optimizing a drilling operation, nor changing drilling operations in real time is recited. The claim merely recites “managing a production strategy by changing drilling parameters for the well using the forecast of future production rates” which recites merely modifying a non-tangible strategy, and merely uses the results of the “executing reservoir simulation … to generate a forecast of future production”.
Applicant argues: “For example, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a specific improvement over prior art systems at least by "managing a production strategy, by changing drilling parameters for the well using the forecast of future production rates." “
Examiner notes that the recited “managing a production strategy” covers extra-solution activity since it does not explicitly refer back to the abstract idea steps. Specifically, the “managing a production strategy” is merely based on “the forecast of future production rates”, which is itself merely based on “an input reservoir description, comprising well and reservoir parameters” which need not be based on the determined diagnostic plots. Therefore, the “managing a production strategy” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “That is, the derivative profiles of Schlumberger are used for identifying geological features in the reservoir under investigation in the corresponding, which is different than "determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, transitions within geological features for the reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well, the reservoir parameters comprising reservoir spatial heterogeneity," as recited in amended claims 1, 8, and 15”
Applicant’s arguments to Schlumberger are not persuasive since the instant rejection relies on a combination of Hegeman (538) in view of Schlumberger (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly for claim 8 and 15), it recites “determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, monotonic and abrupt transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well”. There is insufficient written description support for the “applying pacification and moderation” and “monotonic and abrupt” in the context of the limitation as whole.
There is explicitly disclosure that additional points can provide pacification and moderation (see the instant application Paragraph 31 “As a result, pressure values of five chronologically-ordered, consecutive data points can be used to represent first-order and second-order derivatives at one of those five points. These additional neighboring (or adjacent) points can provide pacification and moderation to the curvature of derivative profiles”). However, the recited feature of “applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data” is not explicitly disclosed as an ordered combination of steps after adding additional points (i.e., claim 1 “derivatives are determined using a five-point function”).
There is explicitly disclosed that abrupt transition are artifacts which would be avoided after adding more points (see the instant application Paragraph 31 “Although monotonic changes in the smooth-looking profiles due to geological features in the reservoir or well behaviors may appear to be normal, any discontinuity, corners, or abrupt changes in the profiles are likely to be the artifacts of constructing such profiles out of discrete pressure data.”). However, there is no explicit disclosure for determining abrupt transition after pacification and moderation of a curve.
With regard to claim 2 – 7 and 9 – 14 and 16 – 20, they are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting additional limitations to overcome the deficiency.
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.
Claims 1 – 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.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly for claim 8 and 15), it recites “determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, monotonic and abrupt transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well”. There is disclosed that abrupt transition are artifacts which would be avoided after adding more points (see the instant application Paragraph 31 “Although monotonic changes in the smooth-looking profiles due to geological features in the reservoir or well behaviors may appear to be normal, any discontinuity, corners, or abrupt changes in the profiles are likely to be the artifacts of constructing such profiles out of discrete pressure data.”). Therefore, it is unclear how the abrupt transitions can be determined if they no longer appear in the curve. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as determining any kind of abrupt transition in the process of applying the pacification and moderation.
With regard to claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20, they are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting limitations to overcome the unclarity.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a statutory category (i.e. a process) method, comprising: arranging, in chronological order, the discrete data for production of a well and an associated reservoir over a time period; determining, at a first focal point in the time period, first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives of pressure versus a time series in the well and the associated reservoir, wherein the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives are determined using a five-point function, and wherein the five-point function considers beginning and ending points in the time period; determining, following the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives determined for the first focal point, the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives at a second focal point; determining, applying terminal corrections, the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives at all the successive focal points; determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, monotonic and abrupt transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well, the reservoir parameters comprising reservoir heterogeneity, the reservoir parameters spatially changing; managing a production strategy by changing drilling parameters for the well using the forecast of future production rates. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “arranging” and “determining, applying terminal corrections wherever deemed necessary” and “determining … using the diagnostic plots and data … transitions within geological features for” and “managing” requires no more than judgement, evaluations or manipulations that reasonably could be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining, at a first focal point in the time period” explicitly computes derivatives using a five-point function. The “determining, following the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives” merely repeats the use of the five-point function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; performing a drill-stem test controlled by a testing flow-head using tubing running through casing of a well; receiving, from a plurality of well sensors, during the drill-stem test and production, discrete data for production of the well and an associated reservoir over a time period, the discrete data comprising pressure data and temperature data at a pre-set sampling rate; presenting, in a user interface, numerical values and plots of first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivative profiles based on the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives; generating, using the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivative profiles superposed relative to time, diagnostic plots and data for determining geological features for the associated reservoir and well parameters for the well; executing reservoir simulation models using an input reservoir description, comprising well and reservoir parameters, to generate a forecast of future production rates under a plurality of constraints corresponding to well types. The “computer-implemented” and “user-interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “performing a drill-stem test” and “receiving” amount to insignificant data gathering. The “presenting” and “generating” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the data is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “executing” amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” since they are not explicitly linked with the abstract idea steps, and requires no more than generic computer components to implement the “reservoir simulation”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” and “user-interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “performing a drill-stem test” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it comprises a typical set-up (see the instant application Paragraph 7 “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of a well schematic used in a typical downhole set-up for running drill-stem tests, according to some implementations of the present disclosure.”). The ”receiving” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it relies on generic sensors producing data for later receiving which can be implemented using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since the plots of the derivatives and estimates that are providing can be implemented using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “executing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Looking at the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than looking at them individually since the “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” and “executing” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 5 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 2 wherein the discrete data comprises: well pressure versus time, production/injection versus time, petrophysical parameters, and rock and fluid properties; In claim 3 wherein the well is an oil well, a gas well, or a water well; In claim 4 combining data obtained from drill-stem tests of the well with fluid production and injection rates and rock and fluid properties, as combined data; and characterizing the well and a completed reservoir of the well using the combined data; In claim 5 providing, based on the well and completed reservoir, dynamic parameters for well and the associated reservoir. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “discrete data includes” and ”wherein the well is further limit the parent claim “arranging” and without precluding performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “combing data” and “characterizing the” and “providing” require no more than judgement, evaluations or manipulations that reasonably could be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 – 7 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 6 using the dynamic parameters to generate reservoir simulation models for understanding development and management of a reservoir, and to predict future performance with production and injection; In claim 7 wherein the forecast of future production rates estimates comprise monthly and yearly forecasts. The “using the dynamic parameters to” amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than generic computer components to implement the “to generate reservoir simulation” and “to predict future performance”. The “forecast of future production rates estimates comprise” further limits the parent claim “executing” but limiting only the type of data generated, which still amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “using the dynamic parameters to” and “forecast of future production rates estimates of future sales revenue include” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Looking at the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than looking at them individually since the “using the dynamic parameters to” and “forecast of future production rates estimates of future sales revenue include” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions to perform operations comprising: arranging, in chronological order, the discrete data for production of a well and an associated reservoir over a time period; determining, at a first focal point in the time period, first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives of pressure versus a time series in the well and the associated reservoir, wherein the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives are determined using a five-point function, and wherein the five-point function considers beginning and ending points in the time period; determining, following the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives determined for the first focal point, the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives at a next (second) focal point; determining, applying terminal corrections, the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives at all the successive focal points; determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, monotonic and abrupt transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well, the reservoir parameters comprising reservoir heterogeneity, the reservoir parameters spatially changing; managing a production strategy, by changing drilling parameters for the well using the forecast of future production rates. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “arranging” and “determining, applying the terminal corrections wherever deemed necessary” and “determining … using the diagnostic plots and data …. transitions within geological features for” and “managing” requires no more than judgement, evaluations or manipulations that reasonably could be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining, at a first focal point in the time period” explicitly computes derivatives using a five-point function. The “determining, following the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives” merely repeats the use of the five-point function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the instructions are executable by a computer system; presenting, in a user interface, numerical values and plots of first- and second-order derivative profiles based on the first- and second-order derivatives; performing a drill-stem test controlled by a testing flow-head using tubing running through casing of a well; receiving, from a plurality of well sensors, during the drill-stem test and production, discrete data for production of the well and an associated reservoir over a time period, the discrete data comprising pressure data and temperature data at a pre-set sampling rate; generating, using the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivative profiles superposed relative to time, diagnostic plots and data; executing reservoir simulation models using an input reservoir description, comprising well and reservoir parameters, to generate a forecast of future production rates under a plurality of constraints corresponding to well types. The “executable by a computer system” and “user-interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “performing a drill-stem test” and “receiving” amount to insignificant data gathering. The “presenting” and “generating” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the data is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “executing” amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” since they are not explicitly linked with the abstract idea steps, and requires no more than generic computer components to implement the “reservoir simulation”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “executable by a computer system” and “user-interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “performing a drill-stem test” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it comprises a typical set-up (see the instant application Paragraph 7 “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of a well schematic used in a typical downhole set-up for running drill-stem tests, according to some implementations of the present disclosure.”). The ”receiving” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it relies on generic sensors producing data for later receiving which can be implemented using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since the plots of the derivatives and estimates that are providing can be implemented using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “executing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Looking at the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than looking at them individually since the “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” and “executing” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 – 12 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 9 wherein the discrete data comprises: well pressure versus time, production/injection versus time, petrophysical parameters, and rock and fluid properties; In claim 10 wherein the well is an oil well, a gas well, or a water well; In claim 11 combining data obtained from drill-stem tests of the well with fluid production and injection rates and rock and fluid properties, as combined data; and characterizing the well and a completed reservoir of the well using the combined data; In claim 12 providing, based on the well and completed reservoir, dynamic parameters for well and the associated reservoir. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “discrete data includes” and ”wherein the well is further limit the parent claim “arranging” and without precluding performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “combing data” and “characterizing the” and “providing” require no more than judgement, evaluations or manipulations that reasonably could be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 – 14 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 13 using the dynamic parameters to generate reservoir simulation models for understanding development and management of a reservoir, and to predict future performance with production and injection; In claim 14 wherein the forecast of future production rates estimates of future sales revenue comprise monthly and yearly forecasts. The “using the dynamic parameters to” amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than generic computer components to implement the “to generate reservoir simulation” and “to predict future performance”. The “forecast of future production rates estimates of future sales revenue comprise” further limits the parent claim “executing” but limiting only the type of data generated, which still amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “using the dynamic parameters to” and “forecast of future production rates estimates of future sales revenue include” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Looking at the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than looking at them individually since the “using the dynamic parameters to” and “forecast of future production rates estimates of future sales revenue include” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites a statutory category (i.e. a machine) to perform operations comprising : arranging, in chronological order, the discrete data for production of a well and an associated reservoir over a time period; determining, at a first focal point in the time period, first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives of pressure versus a time series in the well and the associated reservoir, wherein the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives are determined using a five-point function, and wherein the five-point function considers beginning and ending points in the time period; determining, following the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives determined for the first focal point, the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives at a next (second) focal point; determining, applying terminal corrections, the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives at all the successive focal points; determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, monotonic and abrupt transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well, the reservoir parameters comprising reservoir heterogeneity, the reservoir parameters spatially changing; managing a production strategy, by changing drilling parameters for the well using the forecast of future production rates. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “arranging” and “determining, applying the terminal corrections wherever deemed necessary” and “determining, using the diagnostic plots and data, transitions within geological features for” and “managing” requires no more than judgement, evaluations or manipulations that reasonably could be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining, at a first focal point in the time period” explicitly computes derivatives using a five-point function. The “determining, following the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives” merely repeats the use of the five-point function. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the system is computer-implemented; one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform the operations; performing a drill-stem test controlled by a testing flow-head using tubing running through casing of a well; receiving, from a plurality of well sensors, during the drill-stem test and production, discrete data for production of the well and an associated reservoir over a time period, the discrete data comprising pressure data and temperature data at a pre-set sampling rate; presenting, in a user interface, numerical values and plots of first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivative profiles based on the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivatives; generating, using the first-order derivative profile and second-order derivative profiles superposed relative to time, diagnostic plots and data for determining geological features for the associated reservoir and well parameters for the well; executing reservoir simulation models using an input reservoir description, comprising well and reservoir parameters, to generate a forecast of future production rates under a plurality of constraints. The “computer-implemented” and “processors” and “computer-readable storage medium” and “user-interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “performing a drill-stem test” and “receiving” amount to insignificant data gathering. The “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the data is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “executing” amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” since they are not explicitly linked with the abstract idea steps, and requires no more than generic computer components to implement the “reservoir simulation”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” and “processors” and “computer-readable storage medium” and “user-interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “performing a drill-stem test” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it comprises a typical set-up (see the instant application Paragraph 7 “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of a well schematic used in a typical downhole set-up for running drill-stem tests, according to some implementations of the present disclosure.”). The ”receiving” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it relies on generic sensors producing data for later receiving which can be implemented using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since the plots of the derivatives and estimates that are providing can be implemented using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “executing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Looking at the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than looking at them individually since the “presenting” and “generating” and “providing estimates” and “executing” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 – 19 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 16 wherein the discrete data comprises: well pressure versus time, production/injection versus time, petrophysical parameters, and rock and fluid properties; In claim 17 wherein the well is an oil well, a gas well, or a water well; In claim 18 combining data obtained from drill-stem tests of the well with fluid production and injection rates and rock and fluid properties, as combined data; and characterizing the well and a completed reservoir of the well using the combined data; In claim 19 providing, based on the well and completed reservoir, dynamic parameters for well and the associated reservoir. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “discrete data includes” and ”wherein the well is further limit the parent claim “arranging” and without precluding performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. The “combing data” and “characterizing the” and “providing” require no more than judgement, evaluations or manipulations that reasonably could be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 20 using the dynamic parameters to generate reservoir simulation models for understanding development and management of a reservoir, and to predict future performance with production and injection. The “using the dynamic parameters to” amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than generic computer components to implement the “to generate reservoir simulation” and “to predict future performance”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “using the dynamic parameters to” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Looking at the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than looking at them individually since the “using the dynamic parameters to” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13 and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegeman, P. (US 2014/0230538) (henceforth “Hegeman (538)”) in view of Weatherall et al. “Interval Pressure Transient Test and Stress Testing in Coal Bed Methane Wells Using Dual Packer Formation Tester: Case Studies from Indonesia” (henceforth “Weatherall”), and further in view of Ayan et al. (US 2005/0119911) (henceforth “Ayan (911)”), and further in view of Shumakov et al. “New Generation Impulse Testing: An Environmentally Friendly Well Testing Solution for Tight Reservoirs to Acquire Accurate Reservoir Information” (henceforth “Shumakov”), and further in view of “Well Test Interpretation” Schlumberger (henceforth “Schlumberger (Well Test)”) . Hegeman (538) and Weatherall and Ayan (911) and Shumakov and Schlumberger (Well Test) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of analyzing well pressure data, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of oil and gas.
With regard to claim 1, Hegeman (538) teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: (Figure 1C embodiments implemented using a processor and memory, and Paragraph 39 software is stored in the memory)
receiving, from a plurality of well sensors, during a test and production, discrete data for production of the well and an associated reservoir over a time period, (Figure 4 pressure data from a well is measured
PNG
media_image1.png
314
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
the discrete data comprising pressure data and temperature data at a pre-set sampling rate; (Paragraph 44 sampling of data by sensor can occur at a specific rate “As noted by Bourdet et al., a resulting noisy curve is especially common when the points are acquired at a fast sampling rate because pressure variations become close to the resolution of the sensor”)
arranging, in chronological order, the discrete data for production of a well and an associated reservoir over a time period; (Figure 5 and Paragraph 49 discrete pressure data is shown for different pumping and building operations (arranging in chronological order) “FIG. 5 presents the pressure data 500 from a strain gauge during a ten-hour test of a low-mobility zone. The test has a pretest 510, extended pumpout period 520, and final buildup 530.”)
determining, at a first focal point in the time period, first-order derivative profiles of pressure versus a time series in the well and the associated reservoir, wherein the first-order derivative profiles are determined using a five-point function, and wherein the five-point function considers beginning and ending points in the time period; (Paragraph 48 and Figure 3 five points are used to compute the derivative include the beginning/ending points “Therefore, when a differentiation interval Lis used, instead of simply using the point i and the two end points, the disclosed systems and/or methods propose that all points in the interval i-k to i+j be used. The differentiation interval L may be established according to a time window. That is, when calculating pressure derivative, a time window of a given size may be defined about each pressure measurement. Thus, the time window may be defined about point i such that a plurality of measurements taken during the time window are used to compute the pressure derivative at point i”
PNG
media_image2.png
286
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
determining, following the first-order derivative profiles determined for the first focal point, the first-order derivative profiles at a second focal point; (Paragraph 48 computation are repeated for other time windows on the pressure data)
determining, applying terminal corrections, the first-order derivative profiles at all the successive focal points; (Paragraph 48 beginning and ending points of pressure data can use a forward/backward differentiation “When beginning the calculation at the first point of the data set (where i=l), the forward difference formula of Eq. 2 may be replaced by Eq. 4 with m ranging from 1 to l+j, and M=l+j. For the last point of the data (where i=n), the backward difference formula of Eq. 3 may be replaced by Eq. 4 with m ranging from n-k to n, and M=l+k.”)
presenting, in a user interface, numerical values and plots of first-order derivative profiles based on the first-order derivative profiles; (Paragraph 54 “FIG. 12C displays the pressure derivative 1200C for the buildup computed using the LAD method with outlying data points added”)
determining, by applying pacification and moderation to the diagnostic plots and data, monotonic and abrupt transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well, (Paragraph 50 pressure derivate curve used to identify flow regime “In FIG. 9B, the modified method produces a more uniform curve 900B, thus allowing for flow regime identification.”, and Paragraph 31 pressure information can provide lots of information “That is, the pressure gauge can be used to sense the 'reaction' of the reservoir to a change in the flow rate. By measuring that 'reaction', one can determine a significant amount of information about the reservoir, such as the size of the reservoir, how much fluid is in the reservoir, the permeability of the reservoir, boundaries, and other important properties of the reservoir”, and Figure 8 and 9 using different amount of smoothing (by applying pacification and moderation) on the derivative plots results can remove aliasing patters (determining abrupt transitions) resulting in smoother curve steadily decreasing (determining monotonic transitions) for flow regime identification (transitions within geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters for the well))
Hegeman (538) does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the determining and presenting and generating are also for a second-order derivative; and generating, using the first-order derivative profiles and second-order derivative profiles superposed relative in time, diagnostic plots and data.
However, Weatherall teaches:
determining, at a first focal point in a time period, first- and second-order derivatives of pressure versus a time series in a well and associated reservoir; determining, following the first- and second-order derivatives determined for the first focal point, the first- and second-order derivatives at a next (second) focal point; determining the first- and second-order derivatives at all the successive focal points; (Page 7, Bottom “Both plots are usually presented with three types of curve: - Primary plot (pressure in y-axis, time in x-axis) - First derivative (pressure derivative in y-axis, and the time function in x-axis) - Second derivative, or semi log derivative (the derivative of the first derivative in y-axis, and the time function in x axis)”)
presenting numerical values and plots of first- and second-order derivative profiles based on the first- and second-order derivatives; generating, using the first- and second-order derivative profiles superposed relative in time, diagnostic plots and data for determining geological features for the associated reservoir and well parameters for the well; (Weatherall Page 7, Bottom to Page 8, Top significant events during pumping are identified by analyzing the first/second derivatives “Both plots are usually presented with three types of curve … From the SQRT plot, during fracture closure, there is an inflection point on the primary plot (pressure vs SQRT (time)). The inflection point can be identified from the first derivative plot, which is the point that has maximum amplitude on the first derivative curve. This point is corresponding to the point of departure from the straight line drawn from the origin of the plot in the second derivative plot.”,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data disclosed by Hegeman (538) with the analyzing pressure data with a first and second derivative disclosed by Weatherall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify flow regimes (Weatherall Page 7, Bottom to Page 8, Top).
Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall does not appear to explicitly disclose: performing a drill-stem test using tubing running through casing of a well; executing reservoir simulation models using an input reservoir description, including well and reservoir parameters, to generate a forecast of future production rates under different constraints; and managing a production strategy by changing drilling parameters for the well and providing estimates of future sales revenue for the well using the forecast of future production rates.
However, Ayan (911) teaches:
performing a drill-stem test using tubing running through casing of a well; (Ayan (911) Paragraph 90 “'Available tubing sizes '96”, and Paragraph 99 pressure testing in a specific region of the well is a drill-stem test, and perforations in the casing are used “Firstly, during a first Modular Dynamic Tester (MDT) test in an Earth formation using a Modular Dynamic Tester (MDT) tool, wherein a dual packer and a dual probe and an observation probe is placed in a wellbore, underground deposits of hydrocarbon (e.g., oil, water) are produced from the formation. The pressure response and rate of production are measured at the probes … Secondly, when the MDT tests are performed, the casing or formation is perforated and a well test is performed in the formation penetrated by the wellbore thereby producing well test data.”)
executing reservoir simulation models using an input reservoir description, comprising well and reservoir parameters, to generate a forecast of future production rates under a plurality of constraints corresponding to well types; and (Paragraph 62 and Figure 18 forecasts are made (generated forecast of future production rates) using various production scenarios (under different constraints) in combination with a tuned reservoir model (executing reservoir simulation models), where the well bore reasonably covers any desired well type (correspond to well types) “(2) constructing a 3D reservoir model around the well bore, and (3) forecasting the performance of the well under various completion and production scenarios (each of these three activities can be done manually with the help of many different software tools). When this stage is reached, the model can then be used for numerous forecasts that can lead to useful decisions, such as (1) where to complete the well for optimizing production”
PNG
media_image3.png
193
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
managing a production strategy by changing drilling parameters for the well using the forecast of future production rates. (Paragraph 62 the scenarios comprise completion and production (manage production strategy and plans) “(2) constructing a 3D reservoir model around the well bore, and (3) forecasting the performance of the well under various completion and production scenarios (each of these three activities can be done manually with the help of many different software tools). When this stage is reached, the model can then be used for numerous forecasts that can lead to useful decisions, such as (1) where to complete the well for optimizing production”, and Figure 24 and 99 discounted future cash inflows are estimated “Since we have economic data (‘Operational Economics Data’ in step 98), we can generate Net Present Value (NPV) for each tested interval, step 80d3 in FIG. 24.”
PNG
media_image4.png
256
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 4 the predictive model is used for optimized workflows including for drilling “SWPM will be built around optimized workflows including, petrophysical property estimation, static model construction, model tuning, drilling, completion, production, or intervention”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data using the first and second derivative disclosed by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall with the performing reservoir simulation and forecasts disclosed by Ayan (911). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better plan future well decisions (Ayan (911) Paragraph 62).
Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911) does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the drill-stem test is controlled by a testing flow-head
However, Shumakov teaches:
performing a drill-stem test controlled by a testing flow-head using tubing running through casing of a well; (Shumakov Figure 1 drill-stem test is conducted with a flow-head
PNG
media_image5.png
284
163
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the drill-stem testing disclosed by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911) with the drill-stem test comprising a flow-head disclosed by Shumakov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement a drill-stem test (Shumakov Figure 1).
Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov does not appear to explicitly disclose: the reservoir parameters comprising reservoir heterogeneity, the reservoir parameters spatially changing.
However, Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches:
determining, using diagnostic plots and data, transitions with geological features for reservoir parameters and well parameters, the reservoir parameters comprising reservoir heterogeneity, the reservoir parameters spatially changing (Schlumberger (Well Test) Page 38 specific derivative features indicate spatial heterogeneity in reservoir porosity
PNG
media_image6.png
177
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the drill-stem testing disclosed by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov with the analysis of pressure data indicating reservoir spatial heterogeneity disclosed by Schlumberger (Well Test). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze transitions for indicating reservoir spatial heterogeneity (Schlumberger (Well Test).
With regard to claim 8, it recites the same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test). Claim 8 further recites: a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising. Hegeman (538) teaches: a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising. (Figure 1C embodiments implemented using a processor and memory, and Paragraph 39 software is stored in the memory).
With regard to claim 15, it recites the same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test). Claim 15 further recites: a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising. Hegeman (538) teaches: a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising. (Figure 1C embodiments implemented using a processor and memory, and Paragraph 39 software is stored in the memory).
With regard to claim 2 and 9 and 16, Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and further teaches wherein the discrete data comprises:
well pressure versus time, (Hegeman (538) Figure 3)
production/injection versus time, (Weatherall Figure 8 )
PNG
media_image7.png
350
633
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
petrophysical parameters, and rock and fluid properties. (Weatherall Figure 5
PNG
media_image8.png
164
638
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 2 and Page 4 the pressure of the injected water based mud is measured (fluid properties)“The fluid was pressurized after exiting the pump module, which was then directed through the interval valve for the injection”
PNG
media_image9.png
394
268
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data disclosed by Hegeman (538) with the analyzing pressure data with a first and second derivative disclosed by Weatherall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify flow regimes (Weatherall Page 7, Bottom to Page 8, Top).
With regard to claim 3 and 10 and 17, Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and further teaches:
wherein the well is an oil well, a gas well, or a water well. (Hegeman (538) Paragraph 1 applicable to an oil or gas well “To obtain hydrocarbons, a drilling tool is driven into the ground surface to create a wellbore through which the hydrocarbons are extracted”)
With regard to claim 4 and 11 and 18, Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and further teaches:
combining data obtained from drill-stem tests of the well with fluid production and injection rates and rock and fluid properties, as combined data; and (Weatherall Figure 2 and Page 4 the pressure of the injected water based mud is measured (fluid properties) “The fluid was pressurized after exiting the pump module, which was then directed through the interval valve for the injection”
PNG
media_image9.png
394
268
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 5 and Page 3, Bottom zone for drill-stem test corresponds to known geological layers (rock properties) and the other pressure and injection rates are with respect to the same layer (as combined data) “Two shale zones were selected for the stress testing with the dual packer WFT. Each shale zone was the barrier located among the coal layers and the hydrocarbon bearing sand layers.”
PNG
media_image8.png
164
638
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 4 pressure testing is performed in a specific interval (drill-stem test)
PNG
media_image10.png
285
272
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 6 with known injection rates (injection rates)
PNG
media_image11.png
248
663
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 8 initial shut in pressure is obtained, where zero fluid is produced at shut (fluid production rate))
characterizing the well and a completed reservoir of the well using the combined data. (Weatherall Page 4 “The reservoir transmissibility (permeability, or permeability x thickness) and initial reservoir pressure can be identified if there is clear radial flow regime after the fracture closure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data disclosed by Hegeman (538) with the analyzing pressure data with a first and second derivative disclosed by Weatherall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify flow regimes (Weatherall Page 7, Bottom to Page 8, Top).
With regard to claim 5 and 12 and 19, Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 4 and 11 and 18, and further teaches:
providing, based on the well and completed reservoir, dynamic parameters for well and the associated reservoir. (Weatherall Paragraph 4 the permeability and the initial reservoir pressure are provided and would change over time “The reservoir transmissibility (permeability, or permeability x thickness) and initial reservoir pressure can be identified if there is clear radial flow regime after the fracture closure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data disclosed by Hegeman (538) with the analyzing pressure data with a first and second derivative disclosed by Weatherall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to identify flow regimes (Weatherall Page 7, Bottom to Page 8, Top).
With regard to claim 6 and 13 and 20, Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 5 and 12 and 19, and further teaches:
using the dynamic parameters to generate reservoir simulation models for understanding development and management of a reservoir, and (Ayan (911) Abstract different completion scenarios are analyzed “This SWPM-MDT workflow will simultaneously analyze several formation tester Interval Pressure Transient Tests (IPTT) as well as well tests and pressure gradients. An End Result, which is generated by the workflow, is a 3D representative reservoir model which will honor dynamic data and which can be used to study alternative completion and production scenarios.”)
to predict future performance with production and injection. (Ayan (911) Figure 24 and Paragraphs 99 discounted future cash inflows are estimated “Since we have economic data (‘Operational Economics Data’ in step 98), we can generate Net Present Value (NPV) for each tested interval, step 80d3 in FIG. 24.”
PNG
media_image4.png
256
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 110 prediction are with regard to production and injection “Active and surrounding well's production/injection data are also input … At the end of this step, a one-dimensional reservoir model along the wellbore is obtained with increased efficiency.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data using the first and second derivative disclosed by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall with the performing reservoir simulation and forecasts disclosed by Ayan (911). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better plan future well decisions (Ayan (911) Paragraph 62).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test), and further in view of Richard, V. (US 2013/0268318) (henceforth “Richard (318)”). Hegeman (538) and Weatherall and Ayan (911) and Shumakov and Schlumberger (Well Test) and Richard (318) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of analyzing well pressure data, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of oil and gas.
With regard to claim 7 and 14, Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the forecast of future production rates estimates comprise monthly and yearly forecasts.
However, Richards (318) teaches:
wherein a forecast of future production rates estimates comprise monthly and yearly forecasts (Richard (318) Paragraph 7 monthly or yearly forecasts can be generated based on a forecast model, and Paragraph 26 the modeling is applicable in oil and gas field)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of analyzing pressure testing data using the first and second derivative disclosed by Hegeman (538) in view of Weatherall, and further in view of Ayan (911), and further in view of Shumakov, and further in view of Schlumberger (Well Test) with the performing monthly and yearly forecasts from a forecast model disclosed by Richard (318). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably make forecasts over different time periods (Richard (318) Paragraph 7).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Poulsen, D. (US 5183109) teaches applying a logarithm to derivative curves for achieving moderation of slope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187