DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 08/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. 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, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed
by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the
claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & 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 & spirit of
compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 2, 10, and 18 to correct minor informalities. Objections to claims 2, 10, and 18 due to minor informalities are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, and after careful re-evaluation of claim limitations, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.3] “I. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not abstract because they recite specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result. The claimed invention is specifically integrated into a practical application because it recites specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result.” After carefully re-evaluating the claims, as amended, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-8 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 9-16 are directed towards a CRM, therefore fall within the statutory category of a manufacture. Claims 17-20 are directed towards a system, therefore fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 9, and 13 are all directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) – see detailed 35 USC 101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC 101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre/post solution) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1) can be summarized as receiving data (i.e. historical well data), testing (repetitive calculation) a numerical model (i.e. 2D PVT model), and data outputting.
Receiving data amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Testing the two-dimensional PVT model is interpreted as numerical simulation (i.e. repetitive calculations) which amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, i.e. repetitive calculations, which a person can reasonably perform with/without the aid of pen/paper.
And adjusting drilling of a well (i.e. data outputting. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 section below for interpretation) is interpreted as Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Since the additional elements of receiving data, repetitive calculation, and data outputting are directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre/post solution) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues [Pg.4] “II. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not abstract because they recite various improvements to oil-drilling operation technology. [...] the claims further recite a combination of limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into practical application of that exception, and thus are patent eligible.” After carefully re-evaluating the claims as amended, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described above, and in further detail below Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101 section, the additional limitations identified beyond the judicial exception are well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d) and therefore do not recite limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but were not persuasive due to new grounds of rejection warranted by amended claims. See Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below.
Applicant argues, [Pg.5 P.4 – Pg.6], Moog, Smith, and Kayode fail to teach/suggest every limitation of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Specifically, newly amended limitation of “ testing the two-dimensional PVT model, to generate a tested PVT model by using static and dynamic simulation models in terms of the EOS, compositions, composition gradient, and oil properties, comprising viscosity to generate the oil properties trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest, in vertical and lateral direction using scarce data” Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 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.
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.
Regarding amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17. The claims recite “to generate a tested PVT model”. The subject matter of this limitation is not properly described in the application as filed. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “generate a tested PVT model” in the application as filed. No patentable weight is given to the amended claim limitation.
Regarding amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (last limitation). The claims recite “using the tested PVT model”. The subject matter of this limitation is not properly described in the application as filed. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. No patentable weight is given to the amended claim limitation.
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.
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.
Regarding amended claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims recite “to generate the oil properties trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest”. The use of this limitation is unclear. It is unclear how this limits “testing the two-dimensional PVT model, to generate a tested PVT model”. Is “to generate the oil properties trends...” the intended outcome from testing the two-dimensional PVT model or is “to generate a tested PVT model” the intended outcome? Or, is “to generate the oil properties trends...” the intended outcome from the “tested PVT model”? Applicant fails to clearly disclose how the oil properties trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest, in vertical and lateral direction is generated. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the use of a PVT model to generate the oil properties trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest.
Regarding amended claims 1 (Ln.19), 9 (Ln.20) and 17 (Ln.24), the claims recite “using scarce data”. This is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “scarce” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “scarce data” to mean “limited data”.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a Process.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of Manufacture.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of Machine.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind and mathematical concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
generating, by reconciling the historical well data, an Equation-of-State
(EOS) and a field pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) model; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards mathematical relationships (MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) and/or performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). For instance, EOS and PVT are both mathematical models which a person can reasonably create with or without the aid of pen and paper. As an example, a person can first reconcile (evaluate, judge) historical well data then create (e.g. draft/draw/write) two mathematical models (i.e. EOS and PVT). Also, the act of “reconciling” per Applicant’s disclosure Spec. [P.0041] “can include, for example, correlating the different types of data, including pressure, volume, and temperature data over time” which is considered mathematical relationships. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”)
generating, using the EOS and the field PVT model, oil properties trends at
initial conditions; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards mathematical relationships (MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) and/or performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a plurality of oil properties, then draft/draw (i.e. generate) trends accordingly while utilizing mathematical models, such as EOS and PVT.)
calibrating the oil properties trends using measured lab-available oil
density; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards mathematical relationships (MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) and/or performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). For instance, the human mind can reasonably calibrate the oil property trends by “applying a magnitude of correction to calculated values based on differences between the calculated values and measured values. The calculated values can be plotted against the measured ones (if available) in order to apply the magnitude of correction” as disclosed in Specification P.48, with/without the aid of pen and paper.)
generating, using the oil properties trends, an in-situ oil composition for
local data and conditions; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). For instance, the human mind can reasonably evaluate and judge the oil property trends and then write down an in-situ oil composition corresponding “to estimates of oil composition for the location of a particular well to be drilled” as disclosed in Specification P.45)
generating oil properties trends to check logical tendencies for in-situ oil
composition for local data and conditions; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably generate a plot, using pen and paper, which captures oil property trends in order to check (evaluate, judge, opinion) logical tendencies for in-situ oil composition for local data and conditions.)
generating an oil viscosity profile in the field PVT model based on the oil
properties trends; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate oil property trends and then create, with/without the aid of pen and paper, an oil viscosity profile based on those oil property trends.)
calibrating and modeling, in a two-dimensional PVT model, the oil viscosity profile using lab oil viscosity; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards performance of the limitation in the human mind (observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably calibrate, i.e., compare oil viscosity profile to measured lab oil viscosity, and model, either by drawing/plotting or mathematical calculation, oil viscosity profile. This limitation is also directed towards mathematical relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(I), since the acts of calibrating and modeling (i.e. numerical modeling) establish mathematical relationships between the oil viscosity profile and lab oil viscosity.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception or insignificant extra solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving historical well data for multiple wells in a field of interest; (The additional limitation is directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, such as receiving historical well data.)
testing the two-dimensional PVT model, to generate a tested PVT model by using static and dynamic simulation models in terms of the EOS, compositions, composition gradient, and oil properties, comprising viscosity to generate the oil properties trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest, in vertical and lateral direction using scarce data; (The additional limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), i.e. mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, this limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, i.e. repetitive calculations, which a person can reasonably perform with/without the aid of pen/paper. Testing the two-dimensional PVT model is interpreted as numerical simulation (i.e. repetitive calculations))
and adjusting drilling of a well based on the oil properties trends generating, using the tested PVT model (Given Applicant’s disclosure, Spec. [P.0051], this limitation is interpreted as an output from the PVT model, i.e. information presented/suggested to a user. Therefore, the limitation is directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. In this case, the claim as a whole is directed towards establishing a numerical model (i.e. PVT model) to generate oil property trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest and the additional element here is directed towards the output of that numerical model.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/outputting) and mere instructions to apply an exception.
Note: Per MPEP 2106.05(d), The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite substantially the same subject matter as
independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add
significantly more. Furthermore, claim 9 recites the element of A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations and claim 17 recites the elements of 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. The additional feature(s) are considered to disclose merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B of the analysis - MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 further recites, “performing a quality check of the historical well data for accuracy and reliability.” The additional feature(s) is/are considered to further disclose performance of the limitation in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pen and paper per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For instance, performing a quality check is inherent to a mental process as it requires evaluating and judging the historical well data for accuracy and reliability. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the historical well data comprises PVT analyses, deliverability tests, and viscosity logs for each well for which data is available.” The additional feature elaborates on the historical well data and is considered to further disclose mere data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the oil properties trends are based on density, GOR, saturation pressure, and lab and log oil viscosity starting at the initial conditions.” The additional feature(s) further elaborate on the oil property trends which were previously established to disclose performance of the limitation in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5, which is dependent upon claim 4, recites, “wherein the oil properties trends are based on published correlations.” The additional feature further elaborates on the oil property trends which were previously established to disclose performance of the limitation in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein testing the oil viscosity profile in the static and dynamic simulation models comprises modeling and checking, statically and dynamically, the oil viscosity profile in a three-dimensional model.” The additional feature(s) is/are considered to further disclose mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein calibrating the oil properties trends comprises applying a magnitude of correction to calculated values based on differences between the calculated values and measured values.” The additional feature(s) is/are considered to further disclose mathematical concepts and/or performance of the limitation in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein generating oil properties trends comprises generating oil properties trends for density, gas-oil ratio (GOR), saturation pressure, C7+ mole, characterization (C7+), molecular weight (MW), and American Petroleum Institute gravity (API).” The additional feature(s) is/are considered to further disclose mathematical relationships and/or performance of the limitation in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10-16 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-8, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claims 18-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-4, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moog, Guillaume J., et al. "Data Integration Process from Oil Characterization and Pvt Modeling to Reservoir Simulation for the East Cat Canyon Heavy Oil Field in California." SPE Western Regional Meeting. SPE, 2021. (hereinafter referred to as “Moog”), in view of Smith, Richard W., et al. "Equation of state of a complex fluid column and prediction of contacts in Orocual field, Venezuela." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition? SPE, 2000. (hereinafter referred to as “Smith”), in view of Kayode, B., F. Al-Tarrah, and G. Hursan. "Methodology for Static and Dynamic Modeling of Hydrocarbon Systems Having Sharp Viscosity Gradient." International Petroleum Technology Conference. IPTC, 2021. (hereinafter referred to as “Kayode”), and in further view of Roy, Sanjit, et al. "Inline Drilling Fluid Property Measurement, Integration, and Modeling to Enhance Drilling Practice and Support Drilling Automation." Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference. SPE, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Roy”).
Regarding Claim 1, Moog discloses, A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving historical well data for multiple wells in a field of interest; (“The main source of data for this study comes from the 2012-2013 delineation drilling campaign and legacy production. Wells G1, G2, G3 and G7 were cored in the interval of
interest and an extensive set of pucks were sampled, tested and frozen for long-term storage.” Moog [Pg.4 Experimental Data])
generating, by reconciling the historical well data, an Equation-of-State (EOS) and a field pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) model; (“correlations are used (i.e. reconciliation) to characterize these fractions and feed them into the Peng-Robinson Equation of State (EoS) model... The tuned EoS and oil composition forms the basis for the PVT models to be implemented in reservoir simulation.” Moog [Pg.4 P.1]. Examiner interprets “correlations” to mean “reconciling” due to Applicant’s disclosure “Reconciliation can include correlating the different types of data, including pressure, volume, and temperature data over time”. [Spec. P.42])
generating, using the EOS and the field PVT model, oil properties trends at initial conditions; (“The initial reservoir composition of the G3 oil was not known. The first CCE done used a recombined sample from a G3 oil sample... hence, that composition was used further into the PVT model. Once the sample shown in Table 2 is recombined with the synthetic gas, the components are fed to a cubic equation of state; in this case, the Peng-Robinson EoS is used. A CCE run is simulated and compared to experimental data, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.” Moog [Pg.6-8 Equation of State Tuning]. Oil property trends are seen in Figures 7 and 8 below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
822
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
testing the two-dimensional PVT model, to generate a tested PVT model by using static and dynamic simulation models in terms of the EOS, compositions, composition gradient, and oil properties, comprising viscosity to generate the oil properties trends for an oil characterization across the field of interest, in vertical and lateral direction (See Examiners note regarding to generate a tested PVT model limitation in Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112 section above. “The oil characterization methodology used in this work... is schematically shown in Figure 3 (see below)... The EoS model is then tuned to available constant (i.e. static modeling) composition expansion (CCE) data. The tuned EoS and oil composition forms the basis for the PVT models to be implemented in reservoir simulation... a compositional viscosity model with the application of the non-ideal mixing rules is utilized to model viscosity as a function of temperature (i.e. dynamic modeling)... The EoS model and the viscosity model were successfully lumped in several steps to a four-component model without significant loss of accuracy. Finally, vertical compositional variations captured by Iatroscan SAPP (Saturates, Aromatics, Polar I and Polar II) analyses on core plug samples were positively correlated with viscosity variation observations in various wells across the field... In combination with the EoS and the viscosity model developed, spatial variations in component distribution were integrated into the simulation model by considering produced oil API. The validity of the simulation model was successfully tested against in-situ viscosity estimates acquired with NMR.” Moog [Pg.4 P.1-3]. The Iatroscan SAPP analysis is interpreted to include “composition gradient” because “As listed in Table 1, Iatroscan SAPP analyses were performed to map the compositional gradients in the reservoir as a function of depth” Moog [Pg.13 Characterization Methodology P.3]. As can be seen in Fig.3 Viscosity Model and STARS Simulation model, the PVT Model is a two-dimensional model, which comprises viscosity (i.e. oil property trends) for an oil characterization across the field of interest, in vertical and lateral direction. Figures 20 and 21 (see below) Moog [Pg.17] capture the STARS Simulation model of Fig.3.)
PNG
media_image2.png
600
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
747
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
using scarce data (See Examiners note regarding scarce data limitation in Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112 section above. “One of the key challenges in the field development planning of the BSq sand (i.e. field of interest) lies in the uncertainty around the oil properties and its proper characterization in simulation studies... the data is further complemented by limited data gathered from 42 legacy wells and historic records of produced API” Moog [Pg.2 last paragraph Ln.4-5])
Moog fails to specifically disclose “calibrating the oil properties trends using measured lab-available oil density”, “generating, using the oil properties trends, an in-situ oil composition for local data and conditions”, “generating oil properties trends to check logical tendencies for in-situ oil composition for local data and conditions”, and “calibrating and modeling, in a two-dimensional PVT model, the oil viscosity profile using lab oil viscosity”.
However, the analogous art of Smith discloses, calibrating the oil properties trends using measured lab-available oil density; (“Each laboratory experiment of the selected samples was simulated with the cubic Peng-Robinson EOS with shift factors to adjust (i.e. calibrating) for fluid density, and compared to the laboratory observations. The results were surprisingly good... demonstrating that the behavior of the fluids (i.e. oil property trends) was being reproduced with a basic EOS.” Smith [Pg.5 Col.1 P.3])
generating, using the oil properties trends, an in-situ oil composition for local data and conditions; (“Identification of the in-situ compositions at initial reservoir conditions for model initialization.” Smith [Pg.2 Col.2 EOS Characterization and Initialization])
generating oil properties trends to check logical tendencies for in-situ oil composition for local data and conditions; (“The idea is to look for any natural tendency that may exist “ Smith [Pg.4 Col.1 P.4], “Our analysis effectively starts in Figures 4, showing the distribution of C1 and C7+ (i.e. in-situ oil composition) versus ps, identifying the natural trend of the data.” Smith [Pg.4 Col.2 P.4])
calibrating and modeling, in a two-dimensional PVT model, the oil viscosity profile using lab oil viscosity; (“regression was performed (i.e. calibrating) against both gas and oil viscosity to guarantee correct estimation of reservoir fluid viscosity...oil viscosity are measured during lab experiment procedures” Smith [Pg.5 Col.2 P.1].
Oil viscosity profile modeling is seen in Figure 14 below and a two-dimensional PVT model is shown in Table 1 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
662
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
771
1170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Moog and Smith are analogous arts because they both relate to reservoir modelling, in particular fluid composition (i.e. oil properties) modelling. Moog discloses “The characterization of live-oil properties and PVT modeling is a critical part of a reservoir description and dynamics study.” [Pg.1 Abstract] and Smith discloses “The paper demonstrates a technique to identify representative samples for use in developing an EOS, and for initializing fluids in place.” [Pg.1 Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant’s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Moog to
Incorporate the teachings of Smith for “providing consistent vertical composition distribution and compositional model stability.” Smith [Pg.1 Abstract].
The Moog-Smith combination fails to specifically disclose “generating an oil viscosity profile in the field PVT model based on the oil properties trends”.
However, the analogous art of Kayode discloses generating an oil viscosity profile in the field PVT model based on the oil properties trends; (“For a particular example shown in Fig.1, the correct modelling of viscosity profile resulted in longer plateau production.” Kayode [P.11 Discussion of Results])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant’s effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Moog-Smith combination to incorporate an oil viscosity profile, as disclosed by Kayode, in order to integrate “well log data and compositional fluid analysis to develop a mathematical model that mimics the oil's property variation with depth” Kayode [Pg.1 Abstract].
The Examine acknowledges that Moog-Smith-Kayode fail to specifically disclose adjusting drilling of a well based on the oil properties trends generating, using the tested PVT model.
However, Roy discloses adjusting drilling of a well based on the oil properties trends generating, (“Real-time data is shared with relevant rig and office-based personnel to enable process monitoring and trigger operational changes (i.e. adjusting drilling of well). It feeds into real-time engineering analyses tools and models to monitor performance and provides instantaneous feedback on downhole fluid behavior and impact on drilling performance based on current drilling and drilling fluid property data” Roy [Abstract]. Providing instantaneous feedback is interpreted as “adjusting drilling of a well” due to Applicant’s disclosure Spec. [P.0051] “In some implementations, the suggestions can be implemented in real-time, such as to provide an immediate or near- immediate change in operations or in a model. The term real-time can correspond, for example, to events that occur within a specified period of time, such as within one minute or within one second. In some implementations, values of parameters or other variables that are determined can be used automatically (such as through using rules) to implement changes in oil or gas well exploration, production/drilling, or testing.”) using the tested PVT model (See Examiner’s note regarding using the tested PVT model in Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112 section, as well as Moog in above limitation.)
Roy is analogous art as it relates to drilling automation. Roy discloses “The primary objectives were to develop an autonomous system capable of measuring fluid properties while drilling with minimal to no human interaction, and to deliver the real-time data continuously for engineering analyses and remote viewing and dissemination” Roy [Pg.2 P.6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Moog-Smith-Kayode combination to include adjustment of well drilling based on real-time data, as Roy discloses, because “Frequent, reliable, and repeatable measurements are key to the evolution of digitization of drilling information and drilling automation” Roy [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 2, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Smith further discloses, performing a quality check of the historical well data for accuracy and reliability. (“The preliminary evaluation of data quality follow general industry-accepted guidelines11,12 of performing basic tests of data consistency.” Smith [Pg.3 Data Quality Evaluation])
Smith discloses the limitations of claim 2 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Moog-Kayode-Roy as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Smith further discloses, wherein the historical well data comprises PVT analyses, deliverability tests, and viscosity logs for each well for which data is available. (“all available PVT sample (i.e. historical well data) laboratory data was used in the analysis and in the development of the EOS.” Smith [Pg.2 Col.2 P.3]. Examiner interprets PVT samples to include PVT analyses, deliverability tests, and viscosity logs for each well because “Samples ORS-052, ORS-053, ... and ORS-066 have PVT measured API gravities ranging from 38° to 45°, with GORs ranging from 4120 to 13,300 scf/STB, clearly classified as volatile oil, condensate and gas condensate (i.e. analysis and deliverability test).” Smith [Pg.3 Col.1 P.1], and “Viscosity data from mixed experiments such as the CCE and DL experiments.” Smith [Pg.3 Col.2])
Smith discloses the limitations of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Moog-Kayode-Roy as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Moog further discloses wherein the oil properties trends are based on density, GOR, saturation pressure, and lab and log oil viscosity starting at the initial conditions. (“The gas was recombined with the dead bitumen at different weight ratios to determine the effect of the gas on the saturation pressure and GOR...hence, that composition was used further into the PVT model”. Moog [Pg.6-7 Equation of State Tuning]. Density trend can be seen in Figure 8 [Pg.8] and lab/log oil viscosity trends can be seen in Figure 13 [Pg.11] below.)
PNG
media_image6.png
396
847
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
422
967
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Moog discloses the limitations of claim 4 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Smith-Kayode-Roy as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer implemented method of claim 4, Moog further discloses, wherein the oil properties trends are based on published correlations. (“O'Sullivan et al. (2015) published an extensive study on the variation of physical properties of the in-situ fluids in the Cat Canyon field... The results from O'Sullivan et al. (2015) spurred further studies for a better characterization of the oil ... Finally, the methodology is compared with the NMR profiles (i.e. oil property trends) introduced by O'Sullivan et al. (2015) to verify its accuracy and improvement over previous models.” Moog [Pg.2-3])
Moog discloses the limitations of claim 5 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Smith-Kayode-Roy as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kayode further discloses, wherein testing the oil viscosity profile in the static and dynamic simulation models comprises modeling and checking, statically and dynamically, the oil viscosity profile (see Claim 1 for Kayode limitation disclosure) in a three-dimensional model. (“Figure 8 shows an illustrative cross-section of the 3D viscosity model.” [P.9], see below)
PNG
media_image8.png
377
543
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kayode discloses the limitations of claim 6 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Moog-Smith -Roy as claims 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Moog further discloses, wherein calibrating the oil properties trends comprises applying a magnitude of correction to calculated values based on differences between the calculated values and measured values. (“The model used the factor shown in Figure 19 to minimize the south-west area errors in API predictions; a 0.64 factor (i.e. magnitude of correction) was obtained to minimize API predictions for the whole model” Moog [Pg.16 P.1])
Moog discloses the limitations of claim 7 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Smith-Kayode-Roy as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Moog-Smith-Kayode-Roy disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Smith further discloses, wherein generating oil properties trends comprises generating oil properties trends for density, gas-oil ratio (GOR), saturation pressure, C7+ mole, characterization (C7+), molecular weight (MW), and American Petroleum Institute gravity (API). (“The following data relationships were studied in detail for fluid initialization:
GOR vs TVDSS
API Gravity of the separator liquid vs TVDSS
mol-%C7+/(mol-% C1-to-mol-%C6) vs TVDSS
C7+ density vs TVDSS
ps vs TVDSS “ Smith [Pg.4 Analysis]. Also see Pg.9-12 Figures.)
Smith discloses the limitations of claim 8 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Moog-Kayode-Roy as claim 1.
Claims 9-16 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-8 respectively and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, independent claim 9 recites A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system. It is understood that a computer system is inherent to the processes/methods/models disclosed by Moog, Smith, Kayode, and Roy.
Claims 17-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-4, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, independent claim 17 recites A computer-implemented system. It is understood that a computer implemented syste