DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 – 16 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 5 - 9 and 15 - 16 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 11 are cancelled.
Response to Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant’s amendments overcome the provision double patenting rejection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The stratigraphic forward modelling program is not a generic tool used to automate abstract ideas; rather, the modeling is a specific, specialized program configured to implement specific stratigraphic physics and time-stepped sediments layer deposition.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees since stratigraphic forward modelling programs are well known (see the instant application, Background section, Pages 1, Lines 22 - 23 “Among these methods, stratigraphic forward modelling programs are known, which are computer programs”).
Applicant argues: “The claimed running step is tightly coupled to the calibration set out in claim 1, and in particular the determination of the number of layers of sediments to be simulated … The claimed "running," considered jointly with the calibration, i.e., the steps of determining the number of layers of sediments to be modelled, amounts to more than mere "apply it" and instead forms a technological solution to a technical problem of how to accurately characterize a geological reservoir from available log data.”
Examiner notes that the manner in which the stratigraphic forward modelling program is configured is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “running … according to the determined …”). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “As to Step 2A, Prong Two, … Amended claims 1, 15, and 16 recite running a stratigraphic forward modeling program configured to simulate a superposition of successive sedimentary layers (a particular, domain specific simulation engine), using parameters determined from facies logs (number of layers and per-layer thicknesses aligned to facies changes).”
Examiner notes that the problem being overcome is the configuration of the stratigraphic forward modelling program itself. Therefore, the benefits of the claimed of the claimed invention are tied to the “determining a number of layers of sediments” and the running of the stratigraphic forward modeling program itself occurs in a normal and customary manner after being configured. Examiner further notes that the configuring of the stratigraphic forward modeling program itself is not explicitly recited. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Claims 1, 15, and 16 implement the claim features with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (i.e., the stratigraphic forward modelling simulator, configured as claimed), and transforms domain inputs (facies logs and derived parameters) into a different thing, namely a simulated reservoir with a specific time-layer scaffold driven by the derived parameters” (emphasis added)
Examiner notes that the claimed invention requires no more than general purpose computer hardware and/or software, and that the statutory category is a process therefore only the claimed steps are limiting and not including any computer structure. As discussed previously, the stratigraphic forward modeling program is well-known. Examiner further notes that the Alice/Mayo transformation test is no longer explicitly relied upon after the 2019 PEG update.
Applicant argues: “By analogy, Applicant directs attention to eligible example 37 provided in the Office's guidance on subject-matter eligibility, regarding a method of rearranging icons in a graphical user interface of a computer system. In this example, "the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved used interface for electronic devices."
In the present case, the claims recite a specific manner of operating a stratigraphic forward modelling tool, including determining parameters for the stratigraphic forward modelling program, resulting in a reservoir model that is simulated according to available facies logs acquired from the reservoir. The computer-implemented method of each of claims 1, 15, and 16 improves the consistency of the model with an actual, observable reservoir in a geologic subsurface, and hence improves the reliability for assessing exploration and production of resources from the reservoir” (emphasis added)
Applicant points to Example 37, however, does not explicitly compare and/or contrast the claimed invention to Example 37 which is to a graphical user interface which is fundamentally different from stratigraphic forward modeling. Further, the examples are for training purposes only and do not have the same weight as other legal guidance, such as precedential court cases. Examiner notes that the improved consistency of the model is realized when the stratigraphic forward modelling program is configured, and not when it is run (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Further, any potential downstream uses of the modelling program results are not limited by the claim and do not amount to a practical application (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Further, the configuring of the stratigraphic forward modeling program is not explicitly recited.
Applicant argues: “In this perspective, the "receiving" step of claims 1, 15, and 16 does not amount to insignificant data gathering, since the facies log comprises specific data acquired from a real reservoir, which enables a determination of the parameters for the output modelling of the reservoir. Furthermore, the "determining" steps are directed to specific parameters of the simulation.”
Examiner notes that specific data gathered can comprise insignificant data gathering when it is gathered in a generic manner. Specifically, the data gathered is directly needed and wholly informed by the “determining” step, therefore, it does not add anything that is significantly more.
Applicant argues: “1. The additional steps provide a concrete, domain-specific control action tied to the operation of a particular technical system (the stratigraphic forward modelling simulator configured with the determined layer count and per-layer thicknesses). The system performs a technical consistency check (thickness/time vs. computed layer) and conditionally generates an alert that changes how the system is used -- prompting corrective action by a user which may be performed before or during simulation.
2. The additional steps effect a real-world application of the determined parameters beyond mere data analysis by feeding back a consistency evaluation to alert the user, which ensures the simulation is geologically coherent.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed additional step amount to a “domain-specific control action”, and that there is recited a consistency check and alert, and that further user action is prompted and may be performed. Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not recite any control action, nor does it amount to a controller. Further, the configuring of the stratigraphic forward modelling program is recited at a high-level of generality. Examiner further notes that limiting the claimed invention a particular technological environment or field of use does not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner further that the consistency check is part of the abstract idea and not an additional element (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101). Examiner further notes that potential downstream user actions are not part of the claim scope, and the alert generation itself is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how it is outputted and/or received by the user. Examiner further notes that conditionally performing insignificant data outputting does not amount to significantly more since it does not nothing to change how the step itself is performed after the condition is met.
Applicant argues: “The recited "determining" and "checking" are not to decide whether "this looks reasonable" or make any arbitrary judgement; rather, they explicitly constrain the implementation of the model to geophysical reality. It is therefore a precise consistency constraint rooted in the physics of sediment deposition and the temporal resolution of the forward model, and thus corresponds to a technical validation rule, akin to a sensor calibration.
Additionally, this check is implemented as part of the calibration pipeline of the model and has a direct effect on the calibration parameters, and hence on the output model of the reservoir once the stratigraphic forward modelling program is implemented. It is thus not an abstract or mental step. This consistency check addresses a technical problem in that it improves the model's numerical discretization” (emphasis added)
As previously discussed, the manner in which the stratigraphic forward modelling program is configured is recited at a high-level of generality. Although the claimed invention is “technical” with regard to stratigraphic modelling, it is different from sensor calibration which improves the accuracy of data collection, in contrast to the claimed invention with improves the accuracy of the model used in a modelling program and requires no more than generic sensors.
Applicant argues: “The generated alert is conditional on a specific technical condition that relates to the correspondence between the model output and the ground data. It is therefore part of a technical control loop ensuring consistency between the building of the model and the reservoir that the model is built to represent.
It also contributes to the technical improvement of the model since the alert ensures that the model is not used when it is inconsistent with the well log (hence, the ground data), allowing the user to adjust the parameters before running the simulation.
The combination of features in claim 1 enables a significant reduction in the number of iterations of the forward modelling with erroneous calibration parameters, saving costs in computational time and resources.”
Examiner notes that the claimed does not explicitly recite a “control loop” since the user is not required to perform any action whatsoever, and the alert and potential downstream user actions are not repeated (i.e., no looping). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior art rejections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior art rejections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is not explicitly recited “number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements … of the facies log”. However, there is recited in claim 1 “each facies log comprises a succession of facies layers of different facies, wherein each facies layers extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness, and each facies is associated with one or more sedimentary elements”. Examiner notes that sedimentary elements are well understood to be deposited during their formation by one having ordinary skill in the art, and the facies layers are explicitly recited as “a succession of facies layers” and “associated with one or more sedimentary elements”. Therefore, the phrasing in claim 3 is readily understood as referring back to the number of successively deposited sedimentary layers in the facies log of claim 1. This is the interpretation for examination purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “determining the number of layers to be simulated“ in “determining the number of layers to be simulated order to represent the locally produced facies of the facies log comprises:” and “determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies as the maximum value between the minimum number of layers and the determined number of facies changes plus one”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there are two previously recited “determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated” and “determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated”. Therefore, it is unclear if the “determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies as the maximum value between the minimum number of layers and the determined number of facies changes plus one” is for the layers of sediments, or sedimentary elements. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as referring back to the “sedimentary elements” since it is closer in the claim and appears to further limit the “sediments” when the limitations are viewed as an ordered combination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3 – 10 and 12 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for modelling the formation of a reservoir in view of defining an exploration and production strategy of the reservoir using a stratigraphic forward modelling program, wherein the stratigraphic forward modelling program is configured to simulate the superposition of successive layers of sediments, each layer of sediments corresponding to a determined period of time, the method comprising steps of: determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program for modelling each facies log, and a thickness of each layer of sediments, such that each facies layer of each facies log is modelled by at least one corresponding layer of sediments simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program; wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program comprises: for each received facies log: determining, from the sedimentary elements associated with a facies of the facies log, an average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, from the average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining, from the determined number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated to represent all of the facies logs, checking a consistency of the determined total number of layers of sediments against an overall thickness of a facies log or a total period of time represented by a facies log. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “checking” requires no more than judgement or evaluations to arrive at a desired result that is intended to be used for a modeling program. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; receiving a plurality of facies logs corresponding to an initial state of at least one well belonging to the sedimentary basin, wherein the facies log comprises a succession of facies layers of different facies, wherein each facies layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness, and each facies is associated with one or more sedimentary elements; running the stratigraphic forward modelling program to generate a model of the reservoir according to the determined number of layers of sediments and the determined thickness of each layer of sediments; generating an alert to a user when the determined total number of layers to be simulated exceeds one facies log in thickness or in duration wherein the total number of layers to be simulated represents a longer period of time than the total period of time represented by the one facies log. The “computer-implemented” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “determining” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “running” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since stratigraphic forward modelling programs are well known, and since the manner of configuring the stratigraphic forward modelling program is recited at a high-level of generality (see the instant application, Background section, Pages 1, Lines 22 - 23 “Among these methods, stratigraphic forward modelling programs are known, which are computer programs”). The “generating and alert” amounts to insignificant data outputting since the manner in which the alert is transmitted and/or received by the user is wholly generic, and generating said alert conditionally does not change how the alert is transmitted and/or received by the user. Examiner further notes that the user is not limited to performing any downstream actions based on the alert, therefore the character of the alert is merely to inform the user. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “receiving” and “generating an alert” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it reasonably encompasses using any electronic means to obtain models or sensor data and transmit an alert (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ... iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The “running” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receiving” and “running” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3, 7 and 9 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated to model each facies log, from the average deposition rate of the facies, a number of different facies within the facies log, and the thickness of each facies layer; In claim 3 inferring from the number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements and the overall thickness of the facies log, a thickness of each layer of sediments to be simulated for modelling the facies log; In claim 7 wherein a number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the transported facies of the facies log is set as the number of transported facies changes along the facies log plus one; In claim 9 determining environmental conditions associated to at least some of the facies of each facies log, to infer, for at least one environmental factor, an environmental factor log associated to the facies log, establishing correlations between facies of facies logs corresponding to two wells respectively, from the environmental factors associated to each facies log, and inferring the parts of the facies logs corresponding to a same time interval from the established correlations. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “inferring” and “establishing” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than mental judgements or evaluations. The “number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the transported facies of the facies log is set as” further limits the parent claim(s) abstract idea “determining of a number of layers” and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 – 6 and 10 recite(s)at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 4 computing an average thickness of the layers of sediments as the overall thickness of the facies log divided by the number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements, and adjusting the thickness of each layer of sediments such that a change between two successive facies in the facies log corresponds to an interface between two successive layers; In claim 5 wherein each facies corresponds either to a transported facies formed from transported elements, or to a locally-produced facies formed at least in part from locally produced elements, wherein the total number of layers of sediments to be simulated is the sum of a number of layers of sedimentary elements to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies and a number of layers of sedimentary elements to be simulated in order to represent the transported facies; In claim 6 wherein the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies of the facies log is determined by at least: computing a cumulative thickness of all the locally produced facies of the facies log, inferring from the cumulative thickness and the average deposition rate of the facies per layer, a minimum number of layers to represent the facies corresponding to in-place produced sediments, determining a number of locally produced facies changes along the facies log, and determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies as the maximum value between the minimum number of layers and the determined number of facies changes plus one; In claim 10 computing, for each time interval of each facies log, a total amount of time or a total thickness represented by the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the part of the facies log corresponding to the time interval, comparing the computed total amount of time to the time interval or the computed total thickness to the thickness of the part of the facies log corresponding to the time interval, and, if the total amount of time or thickness exceeds respectively the time interval or the thickness of the part of the facies log corresponding to the time interval, updating one of the average production rate and the period of time corresponding to a layer of sedimentary elements. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “adjusting” and “inferring” and “determining” and “comparing” and “updating” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than mental judgements or evaluations. The “each facies corresponds either to” further limits the parent claim 2 “determining” and without precluding performance in the mind. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “computing” and “total number of layers of sediments to be simulated is the sum” amounting to performing mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not recite any further limitation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further limitations recited. For at least these reasons, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 8 determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated to model each part of a facies log corresponding to a respective time interval. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than mental judgements or evaluations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further recites: In claim 8 receiving facies logs, of the one or more facies logs, corresponding to at least two wells of the sedimentary basin and identifying parts of the facies logs corresponding to a same time interval. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “receiving” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it reasonably encompasses using any electronic means to obtain models or sensor data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ... iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receiving” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and adapted to cause the processor to carry out, when the computer program is run by the processor, the method according to claim 1. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims the additional elements of claim 1. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Dependent claim 13 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) device for modelling the formation of a sedimentary basin, to implement the method according to claim 1. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims in addition to the additional elements of claim 1: the device comprising a computer configured. The “computer” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as claim 1.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as above and claim 1.
Dependent claim 14 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality, and requires no more than mental judgements or evaluations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further recites: In claim 14 launching a simulation of formation of the reservoir by the stratigraphic forward modelling program according to the determined number and thicknesses of layers of sediments to obtain a model of the reservoir, and using said model for defining an exploration and production strategy of the reservoir. The “launching a simulation” and “defining an exploration and production strategy” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since they recite the idea of an outcome based on the results of the abstract idea. Looking to the disclosure, the “forward modelling program” is not limited to any specific program, and there is no algorithm for defining the “exploration and production strategy” (see the instant application Page 1, Lines 13 – 15 “eventually in order to be able to accurately define the geometry of a hydrocarbon reservoir and evaluate its dimensions, in order to setup the best exploration and production strategy of the reservoir.”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “launching a simulation” and “defining an exploration and production strategy” amount to reciting the words “apply-it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “launching a simulation” and “defining an exploration and production strategy” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for modelling the formation method for modelling the formation of a reservoir in view of defining an exploration and production strategy of the reservoir using a stratigraphic forward modelling program, wherein the stratigraphic forward modelling program is configured to simulate the superposition of successive layers of sediments, each layer of sediments corresponding to a determined period of time, the method comprising: determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program for modelling the facies log, and a thickness of each layer of sediments, such that each facies layer of the facies log is modelled by at least one corresponding layer of sediments simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program, and wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated comprises: determining an average deposition rate of the facies over the facies log, expressed as an average thickness of deposited sedimentary elements during the period of time corresponding to each layer of sediments; and determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated to model the facies log, from the average deposition rate of the facies, a number of different facies within the facies log, and the thickness of each facies layer; and inferring, from the number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements and the-an overall thickness of the facies log, a thickness of each layer of sediments to be simulated for modelling the facies log, said inferring comprising: computing an average thickness of the layers of sediments as the overall thickness of the facies log divided by the number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements; and adjusting the thickness of each layer of sediments such that a change between two successive facies in the facies log corresponds to an interface between two successive layers of sediments. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “computing” and “adjusting” requires no more than judgement or evaluations to arrive at a desired result that is intended to be used for a modeling program. Alternatively, the “computing” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts since it recites math as words (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; receiving a facies log corresponding to an initial state of at least one well belonging to the sedimentary basin, wherein the facies log comprises a succession of facies layers of different facies. wherein each facies layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness; running the stratigraphic forward modelling program according to the determined number of layers of sediments and thickness of each layer of sediments. The “computer-implemented” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “determining” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “running” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since stratigraphic forward modelling programs are well known, and since the manner of configuring the stratigraphic forward modelling program is recited at a high-level of generality (see the instant application, Background section, Pages 1, Lines 22 - 23 “Among these methods, stratigraphic forward modelling programs are known, which are computer programs”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “receiving” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it reasonably encompasses using any electronic means to obtain models or sensor data and transmit an alert (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ... iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The “running” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receiving” and “running” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 16 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for modelling the formation method for modelling the formation of a reservoir in view of defining an exploration and production strategy of the reservoir using a stratigraphic forward modelling program, wherein the stratigraphic forward modelling program is configured to simulate the superposition of successive layers of sediments, each layer of sediments corresponding to a determined period of time, the method comprising: determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program for modelling the facies log, and a thickness of each layer of sediments, such that each facies layer of the facies log is modelled by at least one corresponding layer of sediments simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program, and wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated comprises: determining an average deposition rate of the facies over the facies log, expressed as an average thickness of deposited sedimentary elements during the period of time corresponding to each layer of sediments; and determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated to model the facies log, from the average deposition rate of the facies, a number of different facies within the facies log, and the thickness of each facies layer; and wherein each facies corresponds either to a transported facies formed from transported elements, or to a locally-produced facies formed at least in part from locally produced elements, and wherein a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated is a sum of a number of layers of sedimentary elements to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies and a number of layers of sedimentary elements to be simulated in order to represent the transported facies, and determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies of the facies log comprises: computing a cumulative thickness of all the locally produced facies of the facies log; inferring from the cumulative thickness and the average deposition rate of the facies per layer, a minimum number of layers to represent the facies corresponding to in-place produced sediments; determining a number of locally produced facies changes along the facies log; and determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies as the maximum value between the minimum number of layers and the determined number of facies changes plus one.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “inferring” and “computing” requires no more than judgement or evaluations to arrive at a desired result that is intended to be used for a modeling program. The “each facies corresponds either to” and “a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated is a sum of” further limits the facies operated on by the “determining” and “inferring” and “computing” without precluding performance in the mind. Alternatively, the “computing” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts since it recites math as words (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; receiving a facies log corresponding to an initial state of at least one well belonging to the sedimentary basin, wherein the facies log comprises a succession of facies layers of different facies. wherein each facies layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness; running the stratigraphic forward modelling program according to the determined number of layers of sediments and thickness of each layer of sediments. The “computer-implemented” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “determining” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “running” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since stratigraphic forward modelling programs are well known, and since the manner of configuring the stratigraphic forward modelling program is recited at a high-level of generality (see the instant application, Background section, Pages 1, Lines 22 - 23 “Among these methods, stratigraphic forward modelling programs are known, which are computer programs”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “receiving” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it reasonably encompasses using any electronic means to obtain models or sensor data and transmit an alert (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ... iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The “running” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “receiving” and “running” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 and 112 rejections as applicable.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and claim 3 – 10 and 12 - 14 by incorporation) method comprising: “wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program comprises: for each received facies log: determining, from the sedimentary elements associated with a facies of the facies log, an average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, from the average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining, from the determined number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated to represent all of the facies logs, checking a consistency of the determined total number of layers of sediments against an overall thickness of a facies log or a total period of time represented by a facies log, and generating an alert to a user when the determined total number of layers to be simulated exceeds one facies log in thickness or in duration wherein the total number of layers to be simulated represents a longer period of time than the total period of time represented by the one facies log”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Masson et al. (FR 2860076) teaches a user defined parameter for average rate of deposition or erosion. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program comprises: for each received facies log: determining, from the sedimentary elements associated with a facies of the facies log, an average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, from the average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining, from the determined number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated to represent all of the facies logs, checking a consistency of the determined total number of layers of sediments against an overall thickness of a facies log or a total period of time represented by a facies log, and generating an alert to a user when the determined total number of layers to be simulated exceeds one facies log in thickness or in duration wherein the total number of layers to be simulated represents a longer period of time than the total period of time represented by the one facies log.
AlQattan et al. “Moving Models into Reality: An Automated Workflow to Calibrate Forward Stratigraphic Modeling; Application to Hanifa and Arab-Din Central Saudi Arabia” teaches a calibration scheme between facies logs and forward stratigraphic modeling including thicknesses. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program comprises: for each received facies log: determining, from the sedimentary elements associated with a facies of the facies log, an average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, from the average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining, from the determined number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated to represent all of the facies logs, checking a consistency of the determined total number of layers of sediments against an overall thickness of a facies log or a total period of time represented by a facies log, and generating an alert to a user when the determined total number of layers to be simulated exceeds one facies log in thickness or in duration wherein the total number of layers to be simulated represents a longer period of time than the total period of time represented by the one facies log.
Anstey et al. (US 5999485) teaches search in well-logs or seismic data, for a statistic characteristic of depositional regime. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein determining the number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program comprises: for each received facies log: determining, from the sedimentary elements associated with a facies of the facies log, an average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, from the average deposition rate of each facies of the facies log, determining, from the determined number of layers of sediments to be simulated for modelling each facies log, a total number of layers of sediments to be simulated to represent all of the facies logs, checking a consistency of the determined total number of layers of sediments against an overall thickness of a facies log or a total period of time represented by a facies log, and generating an alert to a user when the determined total number of layers to be simulated exceeds one facies log in thickness or in duration wherein the total number of layers to be simulated represents a longer period of time than the total period of time represented by the one facies log.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 15 method comprising: “the overall thickness of the facies log divided by the number of layers of sedimentary elements to be simulated”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Harris (723) teaches estimating interval thickness values from raw actual seismic data to determine a probabilistic distribution of sand thickness validation data values. However, fails to teach "the overall thickness of the facies log divided by the number of layers of sedimentary elements to be simulated".
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 16 method comprising: “computing a cumulative thickness of all the locally produced facies of the log, inferring from the cumulative thickness and the average deposition rate of the facies per layer, a minimum number of layers to represent the facies corresponding to in-place produced sediments, determining a number of locally produced facies changes along the log, and determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies as the maximum value between the minimum number of layers and the determined number of facies changes plus one”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Harris (723) teaches estimating interval thickness values from raw actual seismic data to determine a probabilistic distribution of sand thickness validation data values. However, fails to teach "“computing a cumulative thickness of all the locally produced facies of the log, inferring from the cumulative thickness and the average deposition rate of the facies per layer, a minimum number of layers to represent the facies corresponding to in-place produced sediments, determining a number of locally produced facies changes along the log, and determining the number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the locally produced facies as the maximum value between the minimum number of layers and the determined number of facies changes plus one”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights