DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-10 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12 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
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a):
Acknowledgment is made of the amended claim 1 and the cancelation of claim 13. Previous rejections (claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12) due to lack of written description are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
Acknowledgment is made of the amended claim 1. Previous rejections (claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12) due to lack of clarity are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Acknowledgment is made of amended claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive.
Rejections to claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.1, last line] that claim 1 is not directed to mathematical concepts under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Office’s Eligibility Framework. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant references [Pg.3 Ln.4-18] PTAB decision Ex Parte Hannun (No.2018-003323) and [Pg.2 Ln.19] USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 38 as confirmation that “the claimed upscaling process” is not a mathematical concept since “the claims themselves do not recite mathematical algorithms, equations, or formulas” and that the claim is “directed to practical applications of mathematical relationships, rather than the relationships themselves”. This argument is moot given new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section below.
Applicant argues [Pg.2 Ln.24] “While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shows in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section below, the limitations “attributing petrophysical parameters to each three-dimensional cell of the grid based on ground data acquired on the subsurface reservoir” and “representing, in the fine-scale three-dimensional model, impervious layers of lithology by attributing, to at least some of the two-dimensional meshed surfaces, a transmissivity reduction coefficient between 0 and 1, that describes an imperviousness degree of the considered layer of lithology” and “wherein each three-dimensional cell of the coarse-scale geological model is associated with petrophysical parameters” recite mathematical relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Attributing/associating parameters to each 3D cell and attributing a transmissivity reduction coefficient between 0 and 1 are interpreted as mathematical relationships. Therefore, Applicant’s argument wasn’t persuasive.
Applicant also argues and [Pg.2 Ln.26-30] “the upscaling step” as claimed is not a mental process since the calculation involved “cannot be performed in the human mind”. This argument is moot given new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section below.
Applicant argues [Pg.3 Ln.1] “the features of the claims are integrated into a practical application and provide a technological improvement” since “the claimed method improves the functioning of a computer and the field of geological modeling by enabling more efficient and accurate upscaling of reservoir models” under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Office’s Eligibility Framework. The 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 1-2, 4-10, and 12 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2 / 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 Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element identified (Claim 1) can be summarized as upscaling a 3D model which amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computer. Specifically, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how upscaling the fine-scale 3D model is accomplished; and/or invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (such as numerical (3D) modeling), i.e. requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Additionally, upscaling 3D models is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known in the industry, as evident by referenced art Khan, Gunasekera, Le Ravalec, and Usadi cited in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103 section below.
Due to the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments were not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Acknowledgment is made of amended claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive.
Rejections to claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12 are maintained.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Applicant argues [Pg.4 Ln.1 – Pg.5 Ln.19], regarding independent claim 1, previously cited Freeman and Wu fail to teach or suggest a transmissivity reduction coefficient comprised between 0 and 1. Applicant’s arguments 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.
Applicant argues [Pg.5 Ln.20], regarding independent claim 1, “The teachings of Le Ravalec and Edwards do not overcome the deficiencies of disclosure of Freeman and Wu”. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is 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.
Applicant argues [Pg.5, last paragraph] “Claims 2 and 8 also depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 1. The teachings of Gunasekera and Usadi do not overcome the deficiencies of disclosure of Le Ravalec, Freeman, Edwards, and Wu”. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is 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.
Due to the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments were not persuasive.
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.
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).
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12 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 claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a Process.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes performed on a generic computer and/or 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:
forming a fine-scale three dimensional model of the subsurface reservoir, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer. For example, a person can reasonably create (i.e. form), either within the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, a fine-scale 3D subsurface reservoir model.)
modeling a plurality of meshed surfaces, each meshed surface being a two-
dimensional surface delimiting superposed layers of lithology extending between two consecutive two-dimensional meshed surfaces (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer. For example, a person can reasonably draw a model with a plurality of 2D meshed surfaces, with/without the aid of pen and paper.),
forming an unstructured grid comprising a plurality of three-dimensional cells, wherein each three-dimensional cell extends between two-dimensional meshed surfaces (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer. For example, a person can reasonably create (i.e. form), either within the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, an unstructured grid comprising a plurality of 3D cells extending between 2D meshed surfaces.)
attributing petrophysical parameters to each three-dimensional cell of the grid based on ground data acquired on the subsurface reservoir (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, this limitation encompasses a user evaluating ground data then determining, based on the ground data, which petrophysical parameters to assign (i.e. attribute) to each 3D cell. Also, the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Attributing parameters to each 3D cell is interpreted as mathematical relationships.),
representing, in the fine-scale three-dimensional model, impervious layers of lithology by attributing, to at least some of the two-dimensional meshed surfaces, a transmissivity reduction coefficient between 0 and 1, that describes an imperviousness degree of the considered layer of lithology; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, this limitation encompasses a user evaluating a layer’s imperviousness, then assigning / attributing (i.e. mathematical relationship) a transmissivity reduction coefficient, based on that evaluation (i.e. observation, opinion/judgement), to the 2D meshed surfaces determined to receive a coefficient.)
,
wherein each three-dimensional cell of the coarse-scale geological model is associated with petrophysical parameters determined from the petrophysical parameters of the three-dimensional cells of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, and from the transmissivity reduction coefficients of the two-dimensional meshed surfaces (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, this limitation encompasses a user evaluating petrophysical parameters then assigning a transmissivity reduction coefficient (“according to its knowledge of the sedimentary structure” [Spec. Ln.30]) then determining, based on the evaluation, which petrophysical parameters to associate with each 3D cell. Also, the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Associating petrophysical parameters is interpreted as mathematical relationships.)
Step 2A, Prong II:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computer. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
upscaling the fine-scale three-dimensional model to obtain the coarse-scale three dimensional geological model comprising a plurality of three-dimensional cells (The additional feature is considered to disclose Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computer. Specifically, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how upscaling the fine-scale 3D model is accomplished; and/or invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (such as numerical (3D) modeling), i.e. requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer.)
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as
a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim, as a whole, is linked to a computer implemented method for the formation of a coarse-scale three-dimensional geological model, but there are no particular physical elements or steps that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Moving on to 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 claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - MPEP 2106.05(f).
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. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions, pertinent to the claimed invention, 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, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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.
Claim 2 further recites, “wherein the meshed surfaces are meshed with
triangles, and the forming the unstructured grid comprises forming a plurality of tetrahedral cells between two consecutive two-dimensional meshed surfaces, such that one face of a tetrahedral cell corresponds to a triangular mesh of a meshed surface, and the summit of the tetrahedral cell belongs to an adjacent meshed surface.” The additional feature(s) elaborate on claim 1’s meshed surfaces and the unstructured grid; thus, the limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, a mesh is “defined by three types of elements: vertices, edges, and faces (or facets)” [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/three-dimensional-mesh]. By definition, a mesh is a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers. What’s more, “one face of a tetrahedral cell corresponds to a triangular mesh” is also a mathematical relationship between the cell face and triangular mesh. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim 4 further recites, “wherein a modeled meshed surface having a
transmissivity reduction coefficient of 0 represents a shale layer of the subsurface reservoir.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further disclose Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer, since the limitation simply elaborates on the transmissivity reduction coefficient which was considered a mental process within the claim 1 analysis. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 5 further recites, “wherein the attributing petrophysical parameters to
each three-dimensional cell of the grid of the fine-scale three-dimensional model comprises: determining a number of lithology types within the fine-scale three-dimensional model and defining each lithology type, determining a distribution pattern of the lithology types within the grid, and attributing to each cell petrophysical parameters according to the determined distribution pattern.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further disclose Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer. For example, “determining”, “defining”, and “attributing” are all mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 6 further recites, “wherein the petrophysical parameters comprise at least porosity and permeability values.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further disclose Mathematical Relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, further defining the petrophysical parameters associated with each cell of the model is a mathematical relationship between the parameters and each cell. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 7 further recites, “wherein the upscaling comprises providing a
coarse-scale grid comprising a plurality of cells, each cell of the coarse-scale grid having dimensions greater than a plurality of cells of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, and the upscaling of the permeability values comprises computing equivalent fluid flow values of the cells of the coarse-scale grid from fluid flow values of the cells of the grid of the fine-scale three-dimensional model and inferring equivalent permeability values of the coarse-scale grid.” The additional feature(s) elaborate on “upscaling”, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 8 further recites, “wherein the inferring equivalent permeability values comprises: numerically solving—Darcy's equation to obtain, in each cell of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, a fluid head in the cell, said fluid head being determined from fluid head values at the limits of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, (The additional limitation(s) amounts to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
inferring a fluid flow value in each cell of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, (The additional limitation(s) amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since to infer requires evaluation and judgement/opinion.)
computing, from the fluid flow values in each cell and the transmissivity reduction coefficients, an equivalent fluid flow value in a cell of the coarse-scale grid comprising the cells of the grid of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, (The additional limitation(s) amounts to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
and inferring an equivalent permeability value of the cell of the coarse-scale grid from the equivalent fluid flow value.” (The additional limitation(s) amounts to Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Due to the foregoing reasons, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 9 further recites, “wherein the modelling of the plurality of meshed
surfaces comprises: selecting a bedform type to be modelled among a library of previously established bedform types, wherein each bedform type defines a disposition of a plurality of sedimentary surfaces, and parameterizing the selected bedform type.” The additional feature(s) are considered to further disclose Mental Process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, this limitation encompasses a user selecting an option. A user “selecting a bedform type” from a “library of previously established bedform types” is an evaluation, judgement, and/or an opinion. Also, parameterizing the selected bedform type amounts to Mathematical Relationships per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 10 further recites, “wherein the parameterizing of the selected bedform
type is performed according to at least one of the following parameters: wavelength of a cyclic geometric pattern of the sedimentary surfaces included in the bedform type, steepness of said cyclic geometric pattern, angular orientation of said cyclic geometric pattern, number of sedimentary surfaces, and mean thickness between two adjacent sedimentary surfaces.” The additional feature(s) elaborate on the selected bedform type parameterization, thus is considered to further disclose Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) performed on a generic computer and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
Claim 12 further recites, “A non-transitory computer readable storage
medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a computer and adapted to cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1, when the computer program is run by the computer.” The additional feature(s) are considered to disclose Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Khan et al. US Patent No. 6826520 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Khan”) in view of Gunasekera US Patent No. 6018497 (hereinafter referred to as “Gunasekera”) in further view of Begg, S. H., and P. R. King. "Modelling the effects of shales on reservoir performance: calculation of effective vertical permeability." SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference. SPE, 1985. (hereinafter referred to as “Begg”).
Regarding claim 1, Khan discloses A method for forming a coarse-scale three dimensional geological model of a subsurface reservoir (“A method is provided for scaling up permeabilities associated with a fine-scale grid of cells representative of a porous medium to permeabilities associated with an unstructured coarse-scale grid of cells representative of the porous medium.” Khan [Col.4 Ln.16-21]), the method being implemented by a computer (“in practicing the present invention, the properties of the domain being simulated can optionally be visualized on 2-D and 3-D unstructured grids using suitable computerized visualization equipment.” Khan [Col.13 Ln.15-20]), and comprising:
forming a fine-scale three-dimensional model of the subsurface
reservoir, by: modeling a plurality of meshed surfaces, each meshed surface being a two-dimensional surface delimiting superposed layers of lithology extending between two consecutive two-dimensional meshed surfaces, (“The upscaling technique of this invention can also be applied to 3-D structured as well as 3-D layered PEBI grids (also referred to by some as 21/2-D PEBI grids). Extension to 3-D unstructured grids is also possible. The layered PEBI grids are unstructured areally and structured (layered) vertically. One way to create such grids is to project 2-D areal PEBI grids on geologic sequence surfaces. Areal connection permeabilities can be upscaled layer-by-layer or over multiple layers.” Khan [Col.12 Ln.22-30]. Layered PEBI grids are understood as a plurality of stacked 2D meshed layers.)
forming an unstructured grid comprising a plurality of three-dimensional cells (“The computational grid is generated in such a way as to produce unstructured, PEBI cells” Khan [Col.6 Ln.66]. The PEBI cells are interpreted as three-dimensional cells because “all cells are three-dimensional” Khan [Col.15 Ln.30]),
and
representing, in the fine-scale three-dimensional model, impervious layers of lithology by attributing, to at least some of the two-dimensional meshed surfaces, a transmissivity , that describes an imperviousness degree of the- considered layer of lithology: (“Assuming, but not limited to, a scalar connection permeability (i.e. imperviousness), the discretized form of Eq. (1) for PEBI grids (i.e. two-dimensional meshed surfaces/layers) is:
∑
i
Τ
t
j
(
P
j
-
P
i
)
=
0
where
Τ
is transmissibility, subscript j refers to the node of interest and subscript l refers to all of its neighbors. The term transmissibility (i.e. transmissivity) as used in this description refers to a measure of the capability of a given viscosity fluid to move across a cell boundary (or inter-node connection) under a pressure drop. More specifically, transmissibility is known to those skilled in the art as a measure of the ability of a fluid to flow between two neighboring cells within a porous medium. Transmissibility is expressed as
k
A
Δ
s
” where k is the effective permeability of the porous medium, A is the area of the boundary between the neighboring cells, and
Δ
s is the average or characteristic distance that the fluid must travel in moving between the two cells.” Khan [Col.9 Ln.39-64])
upscaling the fine-scale three-dimensional model to obtain the coarse-scale three-dimensional geological model comprising a plurality of three-dimensional cells, (“A mathematical basis for upscaling permeabilities from a computational grid to the coarse grid will now be provided [...] The upscaling technique of this invention can also be applied to 3-D structured as well as 3-D layered PEBI grids (also referred to by some as 21/2-D PEBI grids). Extension to 3-D unstructured grids is also possible.” Khan [Col.10 Ln.43 – Col.12 Ln.25])
wherein each three-dimensional cell of the coarse-scale geological model is associated with petrophysical parameters determined from the petrophysical parameters of the three-dimensional cells of the fine-scale three-dimensional model, and from the transmissivity of the two-dimensional meshed surfaces (“Once the fluxes and pressure gradients computed are determined for the computational grid, the average fluxes and average pressure gradients associated with connections of the coarse grid are computed. These pressure gradients and fluxes are averaged over predetermined integration sub-domains associated with each coarse-grid cell, preferably sub-domains associated with each inter-node connection of the coarse grid. The ratio of the upscaled flux to upscaled pressure gradient then gives the upscaled permeability (i.e. petrophysical parameters). This upscaled permeability can then be used to compute transmissibility (i.e. transmissivity).” Khan [Col.10 Ln.31-42], “The upscaling technique of this invention can also be applied to 3-D structured as well as 3-D layered PEBI (i.e. two-dimensional meshed) grids” Khan [Col.12 Ln.20])
Khan fails to specifically disclose wherein each three-dimensional cell extends between two two-dimensional meshed surfaces, attributing petrophysical parameters to each three-dimensional cell of the grid based on ground data acquired on the subsurface reservoir and a transmissivity reduction coefficient between 0 and 1.
However, Gunasekera discloses wherein each three-dimensional cell extends between two two-dimensional meshed surfaces (“In FIG. 13a, the earth formation 15 of FIG. 1 is again illustrated, the formation 15 including four (4) horizons 13 which traverse the longitudinal extent of the formation 15 in FIG. 13a. Recall that a "horizon" 13 is defined to be the top surface of an earth formation layer, the earth formation layer comprising, for example, sand or shale or limestone, etc.” Gunasekera [Col.10 Ln.62-67])
PNG
media_image1.png
529
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
attributing petrophysical parameters to each three-dimensional cell of the grid based on ground data acquired on the subsurface reservoir (“FIG. 13c1 (see below) illustrates the more relevant and novel aspects of the Petragrid software program of the present invention shown in FIG. 10 which operate on the gridded horizons of FIG. 13a (also see 3D cells)“ Gunasekera [Col.5 Ln.56]. As seen in FIG.13c1 below, each cell’s attributes are obtained via well log and seismic data (i.e. acquired ground data). The attributes are interpreted to include petrophysical parameters because “The primary property values within each cell include porosity, permeability” Gunasekera [Col.28 Ln.35] and Applicant’s disclosure “The petrophysical parameters preferably comprise at least porosity and permeability values.” Spec. [Pg.4 Ln.5])
PNG
media_image2.png
649
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Khan and Gunasekera are analogous art as both patents address the modeling of subsurface formations using grids, involve the calculation of properties (permeability or transmissibility) associated with grid cells, and are relevant to reservoir simulation. Both utilize unstructured grids (triangular/tetrahedral cells) and reference Delaunay triangulation or similar geometric constructs. Both ultimately support simulation of fluid flow in porous media and require mapping or transformation between different grid resolutions or types (i.e. fine/coarse-scale).
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 teachings of Khan to include the extension of 3D cells between 2D meshed surfaces and attribute petrophysical parameters to those 3D cells obtained from ground data, as disclosed by Gunasekera, in order to generate “a corresponding plurality of "more accurate" information relating, for example, to the transmissibility properties of the plurality of cells of the grid, the plurality of "more accurate" information being input to a conventional simulator which generates a corresponding plurality of simulation results (such as pressures and saturations)” Gunasekera [Col.1 Ln.26-32].
Although, Khan-Gunasekera fail to specifically disclose a transmissivity reduction coefficient between 0 and 1.
However, Begg discloses a transmissivity reduction coefficient between 0 and 1 (“This method requires the shales to be defined on a fine-scale numerical grid similar to that described for the simulation method. The major difference is that, at present, the sand permeability must be constant and that of the shale zero.” Begg [Pg.4 Sec.2.3.2]. The shale permeability (i.e. KVE) is interpreted to include a transmissivity reduction coefficient because “Using this scheme KVE is calculated using equation (21) where: Si = H+
∑
j
=
1
H
s
+
1
r
l
j
(22) and s = number of shales per metre (e.g. from well cores or logs),
r
= random number between 0 and 1, Ij = length of the jth shale taken from CDF” Begg [Pg.4 Sec.2.3.3]. Note: “r” is interpreted as a transmissivity reduction coefficient due to Applicant’s disclosure “The value of the transmissivity reduction coefficient is assigned to each sedimentary surface by a user according to its knowledge of the sedimentary structure to be modelled.” Spec. [Pg.7 Ln.29]. i.e. “r” (the coefficient) is a user assigned random number. Also note, the cited shales are interpreted as 2D surfaces because “the effective vertical permeability of a reservoir containing stochastic shales in both two and three dimensions.” Begg [Abstract])
Begg is analogous art as it relates to modelling the effects of shales on reservoir performance (i.e. permeability). Begg discloses, “In this paper we address the problem of estimating the effective vertical permeability of a reservoir volume which contains a distribution of small, laterally discontinuous permeability barriers embedded in a porous medium.” Begg [Pg.1 Intro.].
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 attributed Begg’s user assigned transmissivity reduction coefficients, between 0 and 1, to the two-dimensional meshed surfaces of Khan-Gunasekera, to quickly and efficiently model impervious layers of lithology.
Regarding claim 2, Khan in view of Gunasekera in view of Begg disclose the method according to claim 1, Gunasekera further discloses, wherein the meshed surfaces are meshed with triangles (“The surface of a cell face is defined by a local triangulation of its vertices” Gunasekera [Col.27 Ln.4-5]. Examiner interprets “triangulation” to mean “meshed with triangles” because “prior to generating a simulation grid, such as the grids of FIGS. 13a and 13b, the elements or cells of a base triangulation (triangular grid in 2D space)” Gunasekera [Col.13 Ln.6-8]. Examiner interprets “cell face” to mean “sedimentary surfaces” in light of FIGS 13a and 13b.), and the forming the unstructured grid comprises forming a plurality of tetrahedral cells between two consecutive two-dimensional meshed surfaces, (“In FIG. 13a, the earth formation 15 of FIG. 1 is again illustrated, the formation 15 including four (4) horizons 13 which traverse the longitudinal extent of the formation 15 in FIG. 13a. Recall that a "horizon" 13 is defined to be the top surface of an earth formation layer (i.e. two-dimensional meshed surface), the earth formation layer comprising, for example, sand or shale or limestone, etc.” Gunasekera [Col.10 Ln.62], “FIG. 13a clearly shows a multitude of cells 15a1 where each cell 15a1 has a cross sectional shape which is either approximately "polygonal" or "tetrahedral"” Gunasekera [Col.11 Ln.35])
PNG
media_image1.png
529
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
such that one face of a tetrahedral cell corresponds to a triangular mesh of a meshed surface (“Cells for 3D TET and PEBI grids are generated in a manner analogous to their 2D counterparts using tetrahedra...The surface of a cell face is defined by a local triangulation of its vertices” Gunasekera [Col.27 Ln.4-5] Examiner interprets “cell face” to mean “sedimentary surfaces” in light of FIGS 13a and 13b.),
and the summit of the tetrahedral cell belongs to an adjacent meshed surface. (“In FIG. 18, points v1,v2,v3 and v4 are cell vertices; c1,c2,c3 and c4 are cell centers and m12, m13 and m14 are intersection points of cell faces and lines joining centers” Gunasekera [Col.21 Ln. 45-47]. Examiner interprets “cell vertices” to mean “summit of the tetrahedral cell” and to belong to an “adjacent sedimentary surface” in light of FIG.18).
Gunasekera discloses the limitations of claim 2 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Khan-Begg as claim 1.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Regarding claim 4, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg disclose the method according to claim 1, Begg further discloses wherein a modeled meshed surface having a transmissivity reduction coefficient of 0 represents a shale layer of the subsurface reservoir. (“This method requires the shales to be defined on a fine-scale numerical grid similar to that described for the simulation method. The major difference is that, at present, the sand permeability must be constant and that of the shale zero.” Begg [Pg.4 Sec.2.3.2]. The shale permeability (i.e. KVE) is interpreted to include a transmissivity reduction coefficient because “Using this scheme KVE is calculated using equation (21) where: Si = H+
∑
j
=
1
H
s
+
1
r
l
j
(22) and s = number of shales per metre (e.g. from well cores or logs),
r
= random number between 0 and 1, Ij = length of the jth shale taken from CDF” Begg [Pg.4 Sec.2.3.3]. Note: “r” is interpreted as a transmissivity reduction coefficient due to Applicant’s disclosure “The value of the transmissivity reduction coefficient is assigned to each sedimentary surface by a user according to its knowledge of the sedimentary structure to be modelled.” Spec. [Pg.7 Ln.29]. i.e. the coefficient is a user assigned random number.)
Begg discloses the limitations of claim 4 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Khan-Gunasekera as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg disclose the method according to claim 1, Gunasekera further discloses wherein the petrophysical parameters comprise at least porosity and permeability values (“The primary property values within each cell include porosity, permeability, net to gross, as well as other primary cell based properties. Secondary properties in each cell, such as pore volumes and transmissibilities, are calculated using the primary property values and the cell geometry.” Gunasekera [Col.28 Ln.35-40])
Gunasekera discloses the limitations of claim 6 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Khan-Begg as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg disclose the method according to claim 6, Khan further discloses wherein the upscaling is performed by providing a coarse-scale grid comprising a plurality of cells (“A method is provided for scaling up permeabilities associated with a fine-scale grid of cells representative of a porous medium to permeabilities associated with an unstructured coarse-scale grid of cells representative of the porous medium. The first step is to generate an areally unstructured, Voronoi, computational grid using the coarse-scale grid as the genesis of the computational grid.” Khan [Col.4 Ln.16-23]),
each cell having dimensions greater than a plurality of cells of the fine-scale model, (“The cells of the computational grid are smaller than the cells of the coarse-scale grid ” Khan [Col.4 Ln.24])
and the upscaling of the permeability values is performed by computing equivalent fluid flow values of the cells of the coarse-scale grid from fluid flow values of the cells of the fine-scale grid and inferring equivalent permeability values of the coarse-scale grid. (“The computational grid is then populated with permeabilities associated with the fine-scale grid. Flow equations, preferably single-phase, steady-state pressure equations, are developed for the computational grid, the flow equations are solved, and inter-node fluxes and pressure gradients are then computed for the computational grid. These inter-node fluxes and pressure gradients are used to calculate inter-node average fluxes and average pressure gradients associated with the coarse-scale grid. The inter-node average fluxes and average pressure gradients associated with the coarse grid are then used to calculate upscaled permeabilities associated with the coarse-scale grid.” Khan [Col.4 Ln.26-39]) Khan discloses the limitations of claim 7 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Gunasekera-Begg as claim 1.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
Regarding claim 12, Le Ravalec, in view of Freeman, in view of Edwards, in further view of Wu disclose The method according to claim 1, Le Ravalec further discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a computer and adapted to cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1, when the computer program is run by the computer. (“The subject matter of the present invention relates to a workstation based software method and apparatus, which is responsive to received seismic data and well log data, for generating a grid composed of a plurality of individual cells which is imposed upon each horizon of an earth formation and further generating a corresponding plurality of "more accurate" information relating, for example, to the transmissibility properties of the plurality of cells of the grid, the plurality of "more accurate" information being input to a conventional simulator which generates a corresponding plurality of simulation results (such as pressures and saturations) pertaining, respectively, to the plurality of cells of the grid, the plurality of simulation results being overlayed, respectively, upon the plurality of cells of the grid so that a new simulation result is associated with each cell of the grid, the cells of the grid and the new simulation results associated therewith being displayed on the workstation display monitor for viewing by an operator of the workstation.” Gunasekera [Col.1 Ln.20-40])
Gunasekera teaches the limitations of claim 12 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Khan-Begg as claim 1.
Claim 13 has been canceled.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al., in view of Gunasekera, in view of Begg, and in further view of Le Ravalec et al. US Pub. No. 2013/0346049 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Le Ravalec”).
Regarding claim 5, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg disclose the method according to claim 1, but fail to disclose the limitations of claim 5. However, Le Ravalec discloses wherein the attributing petrophysical parameters to each three-dimensional cell of the grid of the fine-scale three-dimensional model comprises: (“A reservoir model... has a grid with N dimensions (N>0 and generally equal to two or three) in which each of the mesh cells is assigned the value of a property characteristic of the area being studied. It may be, for example, the porosity, the permeability (horizontal or vertical) or the facies...Thus, a model is a grid” Le Ravalec [P.0091], “A property characteristic of the area being studied is represented by a random variable (V), which can be continuous or discrete... The petrophysical properties such as saturation, porosity or permeability are associated with continuous variables, whereas the facies, of which there are a finite number, are associated with discrete variables.” Le Ravalec [P.0092])
determining a number of lithology types within the fine-scale three-dimensional model and defining each lithology type, (“In the case of the discrete variables, the realizations can take only a finite number of values such as, for example, 1, 2 or 3, which are the identifiers of a class (for example a facies)” Le Ravalec [P.0126]. Examiner interprets “realizations” to mean “determining” and “1, 2 or 3, which are the identifiers of a class (for example a facies)” to mean “defining each lithology type”.)
determining a distribution pattern of the lithology types within the grid (“A random path is defined for sequentially visiting all the mesh cells of the second model MR2” Le Ravalec [P.0112]. Examiner interprets “random path is defined for sequentially visiting” as “determining a distribution pattern”. The “second model MR2” is interpreted as the fine-scale model because “MR2 is considered to be a model on a second scale, called a fine-scale model” Le Ravalec [P.0094] and the model is interpreted to include “lithology types within the grid” due to the reasons given within claim limitations above.),
and attributing to each cell petrophysical parameters according to the determined distribution pattern. (“A random path is defined for sequentially visiting all the mesh cells of the second model MR2... For each mesh cell i of this path, a. If the mesh cell i contains a value, go directly to step b, and if the mesh cell i does not contain any value, i. Identify the vicinity of the mesh cell in the first and second grids and in this neighborhood, recognize the mesh cells that have known values of V2 and/or V1... ii. Compute the mean m and the variance” Le Ravalec [P.0112-0116]. Examiner interprets “V2” to include “petrophysical parameters” because “a second random variable V2 is defined... This random variable characterizes the petrophysical property considered in the second scale, called fine scale.” Le Ravalec [P.0101])
Le Ravalec is analogous art as it relates to oil/gas reservoir modelling. Its intended use is to construct and parameterize reservoir models at multiple scales to integrate static and dynamic data for accurate reservoir representation. 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 combined the reservoir model methods of Khan-Gunasekera-Begg with the petrophysical parameters, as determined by Le Ravalec, in order to establish reservoir models that are more “consistent with the various data collected in the field” Le Ravalec [P.003].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al., in view of Gunasekera, in view of Begg, and in further view of Usadi et al. US Pub No. 20130118736 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Usadi”).
Regarding claim 8, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg disclose the method according to claim 7, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 8. However, Usadi discloses wherein the inferring equivalent permeability values comprises: numerically solving—Darcy's equation (“In some exemplary embodiments, the surrogate solution may be a formulation of Darcy's law, and supervised machine learning may be used to generate a coarse scale approximation of the phase permeability of a coarse grid cell.” Usadi [P.0061]) to obtain, in each cell of the fine-scale three-dimensional model (“The coarse scale approximation of the phase permeability for the coarse grid cell 700 may be characterized as a function of the fine grid permeability of each of the fine grid cells” Usadi [P.0095]. The model is interpreted as three-dimensional because “The physical system may include a three-dimensional reservoir model” Usadi [P.0052]), a fluid head in the cell, said fluid head being determined from fluid head values (“The multi-phase extension of Darcy's law, yields the formula shown in Eqn. 6. In the above equation, Kv is phase permeability which contains both the absolute and relative phase permeability, μv is the phase viscosity, and the pressure gradient,
∇
Pv, may include saturation dependent capillary pressure and gravity force. Thus, the phase velocity,
V
→
v, is a function of potential gradient and phase permeability, which is itself a function of phase saturation and scale lengths.” Usadi [P.0094]. Examiner interprets “
∇
Pv” as the “fluid head value” because of Applicant’s disclosure “K is the permeability value of the domain, and h is a head gradient vector.” [Spec. Pg.10 Ln.1-3]. i.e.“
∇
Pv” = “h”) at the limits of the fine-scale three-dimensional model (“the solution surrogate may be an approximation of the inverse operator of a matrix equation that relates the fluid flow through a porous media with the boundary conditions of the corresponding grid cell” Usadi [P.0077]. Examiner interprets “boundary conditions” as “the limits of the fine-scale model”.), inferring a fluid flow value in each cell of the fine-scale three-dimensional model (“The coarse scale approximation of the phase permeability for the coarse grid cell 700 may be characterized as a function of the fine grid permeability of each of the fine grid cells.” Usadi [P.0095]. Examiner interprets “function of the fine grid permeability” as “fluid flow value”.), computing, from the fluid flow values in each cell and the transmissivity reduction coefficients, an equivalent fluid flow value in a cell of the coarse-scale grid (“generate a coarse scale approximation of the phase permeability of a coarse grid cell.” Usadi [P.0061], “In the above equation, Kv is phase permeability which contains both the absolute and relative phase permeability, μv is the phase viscosity, and the pressure gradient,
∇
Pv” Usadi [P.0094]. Examiner interprets the term “-1/μv” to be the “transmissivity reduction coefficient” in this case, since the term relates to the inverse of viscosity as it relates to permeability. The inverse of viscosity is referred to as “mobility”, aka “transmissibility”.) comprising the cells of the grid of the fine-scale three-dimensional model (“The coarse grid cell shown in FIG. 7 includes a cluster of three fine grid cells 702, each of which may be characterized by a fine grid permeability 704” Usadi [P.0095]), and inferring an equivalent permeability value of the cell of the coarse-scale grid from the equivalent fluid flow value (“For two-dimensional or three-dimensional models, the effective phase permeability can be written as a tensor as shown in Eqn. 8.” Usadi [P.0096], “the effective phase permeability tensor for the coarse cell may be a function of any of the model parameters of the fine grid, for example, the phase permeability, phase saturation, phase velocity, and the like.” Usadi [P.0097]).
Usadi is analogous art as it relates to modeling hydrocarbon reservoirs. Specifically, Usadi teaches a method of modeling hydrocarbon reservoirs using machine learning techniques to generate surrogate solutions that approximate fluid flow through porous media. The method involves constructing a reservoir model with coarse grid cells and generating fine grid models for cells surrounding flux interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Usadi with the modelling methods of Khan-Gunasekera-Begg in order to improve the accuracy and computational efficiency of simulating fluid flow in porous media within reservoirs.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al., in view of Gunasekera, in view of Begg, and in further view of Freeman et al. US Patent No. 10571601 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Freeman”).
Regarding claim 9, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg disclose the method according to claim 1, but fail to disclose the limitations of claim 9. However, Freeman discloses wherein the modelling of the plurality of meshed surfaces comprises: selecting a bedform type to be modelled among a library of previously established bedform types, wherein each bedform type defines a disposition of a plurality of sedimentary surfaces, and parameterizing the selected bedform type. (“The model simulation layer 180 may be configured to model projects. As such, a particular project may be stored where stored project information may include inputs, models, results and cases. Thus, upon completion of a modeling session, a user may store a project. At a later time, the project can be accessed and restored using the model simulation layer 180” Freeman [Col.7 Ln.35-39]. Examiner interprets “project” to include “bedform types”, “plurality of meshed surfaces” and “parameterizing” said bedform type because “A convention such as the convention 240 may be used with respect to an analysis, an interpretation, an attribute, etc. (see, e.g., various blocks of the system 100 of FIG. 1). As an example, various types of features may be described, in part, by dip (e.g., sedimentary bedding, faults and fractures, cuestas, igneous dikes and sills, metamorphic foliation, etc.” Freeman [Col.10 Ln. 56-58]. Examiner interprets “sedimentary bedding” to mean “bedform”. Examiner also interprets storing a model and then accessing it at a later time to mean “selecting a bedform type to be modelled among a library of previously established bedform types”.)
Freeman is analogous art as it relates to modeling and simulation of geological environments, particularly sedimentary basins containing discontinuities such as fault, along with numerical simulations of physical phenomena like fluid flow. 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 Khan-Gunasekera-Begg combination to include model library functionality, as taught by Freeman, in order to integrate previously established geological models for simulation.
Regarding claim 10, Khan-Gunasekera-Begg-Freeman disclose the method according to claim 9, Freeman further discloses wherein the parameterizing of the selected bedform type is performed according to at least one of the following parameters: wavelength of a cyclic geometric pattern of the sedimentary surfaces included in the bedform type, steepness of said cyclic geometric pattern, angular orientation of said cyclic geometric pattern, number of sedimentary surfaces, and mean thickness between two adjacent sedimentary surfaces (“Seismic interpretation may aim to identify and/or classify one or more subsurface boundaries based at least in part on one or more dip parameters (e.g., angle or magnitude, azimuth, etc.). As an example, various types of features (e.g., sedimentary bedding, faults and fractures, cuestas, igneous dikes and sills, metamorphic foliation, etc.) may be described at least in part by angle, at least in part by azimuth, etc.” Freeman [Col.10 Ln. 64-68]. Examiner interprets “sedimentary bedding” to mean “bedform”.)
Freeman teaches the limitations of claim 10 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Khan-Gunasekera-Begg as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Witherspoon, Paul Adams, et al. "Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture." Water resources research 16.6 (1980): 1016-1024. “The results of this laboratory investigation on tension fractures that were artificially induced in homogeneous samples of granite, basalt, and marble have clearly shown that the cubic law for fluid flow in a fracture, which is given by Q/Δh = (C/f)(2b)3, is valid.” [Pg.1023 Conclusions]
Begg, S. H., R. R. Carter, and P. Dranfield. "Assigning effective values to simulator gridblock parameters for heterogeneous reservoirs." SPE reservoir engineering 4.04 (1989): 455-463. “A statistical approach was used to quantify the distribution of core-plug porosity and permeability measurements to discriminate between significantly different rock types. A successive rescaling procedure was then adopted in which we first calculated effective values for each rock type [...] Finally, the effect of the shales on the vertical permeability was incorporated.” [Pg.1 Summary]
Begg, S. H., D. M. Chang, and H. H. Haldorsen. "A simple statistical method for calculating the effective vertical permeability of a reservoir containing discontinuous shales." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 1985. “This paper describes a quick, simple, easy to use method of calculating the effective vertical permeability of a reservoir region containing discontinuous shales. The method, which is derived in both two and three dimensions, can be applied to a layered medium in which the sand permeability anisotropies (in three mutually perpendicular directions) and the shale frequencies and dimensions can vary from layer to layer.” [Abstract]
Heinemann, Z. E., Clemens Brand, Margit Munka, and Y. M. Chen. "Modeling reservoir geometry with irregular grids." In SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, pp. SPE-18412. SPE, 1989. “This paper describes a practical method for using irregular or locally irregular grids in reservoir simulation with the advantages of flexible approximation of reservoir geometry, simple treatment of boundary conditions and reduced grid orientation effects.” [Abstract]
Zhang, Zhao, Zhen Yin, and Xia Yan. "A workflow for building surface-based reservoir models using NURBS curves, coons patches, unstructured tetrahedral meshes and open-source libraries." Computers & geosciences 121 (2018): 12-22. “a workflow for building surface-based reservoir models using NURBS curves, Coons patches and unstructured tetrahedral meshes.” [Pg.18 Conclusions]
Zheng, Yao, Roland W. Lewis, and David T. Gethin. "Three-dimensional unstructured mesh generation: Part 1. Fundamental aspects of triangulation and point creation." Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 134.3-4 (1996): 249-268. “The present paper introduces an alternative approach for Delaunay triangulation, in which the triangulation is mapped from an equivalent convex hull in a higher dimension.” [Abstract]
Zheng, Yao, Roland W. Lewis, and David T. Gethin. "Three-dimensional unstructured mesh generation: Part 2. Surface meshes." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 134.3-4 (1996): 269-284. “This paper deals with surface patches and surface meshing. Triangular and quadrilateral patches in linear and quadratic forms, and Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline (NURBS)” [Abstract]
Lewis, Roland W., Yao Zheng, and David T. Gethin. "Three-dimensional unstructured mesh generation: Part 3. Volume meshes." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 134.3-4 (1996): 285-310. “Volume meshes are generated through three-dimensional triangulation and interior point creation based on the surface meshes.” [Abstract]
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186