DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 16 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 – 13 are currently amended. Claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 14 – 16 are new.
This office action is in response to submission of the amendments on 07/15/2024.
The instant office action relies on Harris et al. (US 10087723) which is the patent of the publication US 2017/0175492, which is cited on the IDS dated.
Response to Objections
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant has disagreed with the provisional double patenting rejections and appears to request to defer a response. Since the double patenting rejection is provisional to co-pending Application 17/610074, Examiner accepts deferring a response to the double patenting rejection until such time as either the instant application is in condition for allowance or the double patenting rejection is no longer provisional.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s amendments overcome 112(b) rejections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has cancelled claim 11, rendering moot the rejection as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 – 13 have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended herein, is not directed to an abstract idea; rather, it is directed to a specific and practical method for calibrating a stratigraphic forward modelling program, which is a specialized tool used in geological simulations, using real-world geological data (facies logs). This calibration process requires the conversion of physical field observations into simulation parameters, which is a technical process that cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper”
Applicant has not specifically argued any amendments as overcoming the 101 rejection, nor refuted any portion of the 101 rejection from the previous Office Action. Examiner notes that many of the amendments are for overcoming the claim objections and 112(b) rejections, as indicated by Application. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Even assuming claim 1 recites an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claim includes various additional features contributing to improving the accuracy and utility of stratigraphic forward modelling programs, e.g., by determining simulation parameters that are correlated with experimental data. The method results in a model that more accurately reflects the actual reservoir, enabling improved exploration and production strategies. This is not a generic application of a computer, but a specific improvement to a technical field. As will be explained further below, the use of a facies log corresponding to the initial state of the well, and the subsequent steps of determining the number and thickness of sediment layers to match the facies log, are technical features that go beyond a mere abstract idea and provide an inventive concept. Alternatively or in addition, these additional features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional; rather, they are directed to specific, unconventional calibrating techniques for stratigraphic forward modelling in geological simulations. When viewed in the context of claim 1, they amount to significantly more than any asserted abstract idea” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention amounts to determining simulation parameters that are correlated with experimental data (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Further, that the use of facies logs corresponding to initial state of the well and subsequent “determining” are technical features. Examiner notes that the “determining” is part of the abstract idea, and the received one or more facies logs amount 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.
Applicant has provided a conclusory statement that additional elements are not well-understood and routine and are directed to calibration techniques. Specifically, one or more of the argued steps of “calibrating techniques” appear to be part of the abstract idea (e.g., “determining a number of layers of sediments”), however Applicant generically argues the additional elements.
Response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Harris is cited in the Office Action as the basis for rejecting claim 1. Harris relates to a method for calibrating and evaluating a forward modelling program, involving a plurality of simulation runs, and the selection of the input parameters of the simulation from a comparison between the output of the simulations and the ground data. While Harris teaches using a well log as validation data, it fails to teach that the well log is a facies log corresponding to an initial state of the well. Indeed, the excerpts mentioning a well log in Harris are: … These paragraphs relate to the state of the actual reservoir and do not suggest any restoration in an initial, deposit state of the reservoir. In addition, Harris fails to disclose that the well log is a facies log. Harris indicates that well logs are used to derive parameters such as thickness, porosity, etc., but is silent about a succession of rock facies” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the facies logs of Harris are not facies logs that correspond to an initial state of the well. The requirements for broadest reasonable interpretation are discussed in MPEP 2111. Looking to the disclosure, the received facies logs are reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the current state of the well which corresponds to the initial state of the well through an inference step (see the instant application Page 10, Line 14 – 17 “In an embodiment, step 100 comprises the reception 110 of a facies log corresponding to a current state of the well, and a step 120 of so-called well restoration, which comprises processing the log corresponding to the current state of the well to infer a restored log corresponding to the initial state of the well.”). Further, Harris explicitly teaches core logs that show lithological sections (facies logs) which directly constrain the initial state used for the stratigraphic forward modelling (see Figure 3C the core data shows different lithological sections (facies log)
PNG
media_image1.png
283
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
702
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, Harris teaches the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., restoration of current facies log to an initial, deposit state of the reservoir) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 4 and 8 – 9 and 12 – 13 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 10 – 14 of copending Application No. 17/610074 (henceforth ‘074). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘074 anticipates the instant claims..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application
‘074
1. A computer-implemented 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:
1. A computer-implemented method for modelling the formation of a sedimentary basin using a stratigraphic forward modelling program, wherein the stratigraphic forward modelling program simulates the superposition of successive layers of sediments, each layer of sediments corresponding to a determined period of time, the method comprising:
receiving one or more a facies logs corresponding to an initial state of at least one well belonging to the sedimentary basin, wherein each facies log comprises a succession of layers of different facies wherein each layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness, and
a. receiving a facies log corresponding to an initial state of at least one well belonging to the sedimentary basin to be modelled, wherein the facies log comprises a succession of layers of different facies wherein each layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness,
b. determining environmental conditions associated to at least some of the facies of the facies log to infer, for at least one environmental factor, an environmental factor log associated to the facies log,
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,
c. determining, from the facies log a number of layer of sediments and a thickness of each layer of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program for modelling the facies log, and
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.
d. determining, from the environmental factor log associated to the facies log, environmental parameters associated to the layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modeling program such that the superposition of the simulated layers or sediments corresponds to the facies logs.
The dependent claims are anticipated as shown below:
Instant claim
‘074 claim
2
10
3
11
4
11
8
6
9
6
12
13
13
14
15
11
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 – 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. The rejection of claim 11 is in the alternative to the claim comprising non-statutory subject matter.
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. 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” 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 one or more 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 layers of different facies wherein each layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness. 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 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 (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 2 – 3, 7 and 9 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 2 determining an average deposition rate of the facies over each facies log, expressed as an average thickness of deposited sedimentary elements during the period of time corresponding to each layer of sedimentary elements; 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 log is set as the number of transported facies changes along the 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 logs corresponding to two wells respectively, from the environmental factors logs 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 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 sedimentary elements 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 log is determined by at least: 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 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 sedimentary elements 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)). For example, there is recited via claim 1: “determining” that 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 (via claim 1): 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 layers of different facies wherein each layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness. 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 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. 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 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)). For example, there is recited via claim 1: “determining” that 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 (via claim 1): the device comprising a computer configured; 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 layers of different facies wherein each layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness. 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 “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 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” 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 (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 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 the steps of: a combination of claim 1 and 3 and 4. 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 in claim 1 or 3 or 4.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: the additional elements in claims 1 or 3 or 4. 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. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as in claim 1 or 3 or 4.
Independent claim 16 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 the steps of: a combination of claim 1 and 2 and 5 and 6. 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 in claim 1 or 2 or 5 or 6.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: the additional elements in claims 1 or 2 or 5 or 6. 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. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as in claim 1 or 2 or 5 or 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 and double patenting rejections:
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 4 and 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".
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection:
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 6 and 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.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10087723 (henceforth “Harris (723)”).
With regard to claim 1, Harris (732) teaches a computer-implemented 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: (Col. 10, Lines 14-17 disclose "a general purpose computer system with a Central Processing Unit (CPU), memory and other hardware systems that implement computer instructions.", and Col. 17, Lines 21 – 23, and Figure 6 performs stratigraphic forward modeling)
receiving one or more facies log corresponding to an initial state of at least one well belonging to the sedimentary basin, wherein each facies log comprises a succession of layers of different facies wherein each layer extends from a respective depth with a respective thickness, and (Harris (723) Figure 3C
PNG
media_image3.png
407
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
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. (Harris (723) Figure 3C and Figure 6 logs are used to generate probability distributions for modeling the facies layers)
With regard to claim 11, Harris (723) teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and further teaches:
a computer program product, comprising code instructions for implementing the method according to claim 1, when it is executed by a processor. (Col. 10, Lines 14-17 disclose "a general purpose computer system with a Central Processing Unit (CPU), memory and other hardware systems that implement computer instructions.", and Col. 17, Lines 21 - 23.)
With regard to claim 12, Harris (723) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
a 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 any of claim 1. (Col. 10, Lines 14-17 disclose "a general purpose computer system with a Central Processing Unit (CPU), memory and other hardware systems that implement computer instructions.", and Col. 17, Lines 21 - 23.)
With regard to claim 13, Harris (723) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
a device for modelling the formation of a sedimentary basin, the device comprising a computer configured to implement the method according to any of claim 1. (Col. 10, Lines 14-17 disclose "a general purpose computer system with a Central Processing Unit (CPU), memory and other hardware systems that implement computer instructions.", and Col. 17, Lines 21 - 23.)
With regard to claim 2, Harris (723) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches wherein determining a number of layers of sediments to be simulated by the stratigraphic forward modelling program comprises:
determining an average deposition rate of the facies over each facies log,
expressed as an average thickness of deposited sedimentary elements during the period of time corresponding to each layer of sedimentary elements, (Col. 18, Lines 6 – 12 the sand thickness is a thickness of the respective sediment layer “FIG. 3C is an illustration 350 of the progression in the creation of a probabilistic distribution 360 for an example core 352 derived sand thickness validation data value 356. The raw actual core data 352 may contain information to derive interval thickness, depositional environment, reservoir properties, age, sedimentation rate, geometry, etc. for the actual basin 202.”, and Col. 15, Lines 48 - 52 the definition of a standard deviation is a deviation from a mean value. This mean value corresponds with an average value for the respective factor “an embodiment may set the geologically reasonable limits/range of a forward model input parameter as a function of the standard deviation (i.e., er) of the probability distribution of the forward model input parameter.", and Figure 3C the average thickness "x." corresponds with an average thickness of deposited sedimentary elements correspond to the respective layer "Sand Thickness Probability Distribution" (360) shows standard deviation values corresponding with an average "x.")
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. (Col. 1 lines 14 - 16 "Sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers known as strata. Stratigraphy is the study of the origin, composition, distribution and succession of these strata.")
With regard to claim 3, Harris (723) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2, and further teaches:
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. (Figure 3C facies logs are used to set ranges of layer thicknesses for the strata (inferring, from number of layers and overall thickness), and Figure 6 these thicknesses are then varied within the limits to perform forward modeling to match the facies logs (a thickness to be simulated)
With regard to claim 14, Harris (723) further teaches:
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 (Figure 4 model parameters used to mode a basin
PNG
media_image4.png
441
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
using said model for defining an exploration and production strategy of the reservoir. (Col. 8, Lines 11 – 16 basin modeling is used for exploration and production decisions “The various embodiments implementing the unified input/output technique described herein may be particularly useful in basin modeling when applied to frontier explorations where there are few actual measured data from the actual basin available, and often what data is available comes with high uncertainties.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (723) in view of Granjeon et al. (US 2013/0132047) (henceforth “Granjeon (047)”). Harris (723) and Granjeon (047) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of stratigraphical modeling, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of geological simulations.
With regard to claim 5, Harris (723) teaches all the element of the parent claim 2, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: 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 sedimentary elements 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. (see Claim Objections)
However, Granjeon (096) teaches:
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, (Granjeon (096) Figure 3 and 4 deposition is from both suspended transport (locally produced facies) and continental transport (transported produced)
PNG
media_image5.png
280
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the total number of layers of sedimentary elements 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. (Granjeon (096) Figure 2 and Col. 8 layer flow and resulting depositions are simulated and produce many layers (the sum of a number of layers) “The sediment flux flowing at any continental point of the basin is then computed. This flux is defined by a nonlinear diffusive model as a function of the local slope of the basin and of the water flow streaming on the ground surface a set forth in the relationship below. Each sediment class is transported separately”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stratigraphic forward modeling disclosed by Harris (723) with the separate modeling of types of sediment transport disclosed by Granjeon (096). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately perform stratigraphic forward modeling (Granjeon (096) Figure 3).
With regard to claim 7, Harris (723) in view of Granjeon (096) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 5, and further teaches:
wherein a number of layers to be simulated in order to represent the transported facies of the log is set as the number of transported facies changes along the log plus one. (Granjeon (047) Paragraph 52 events break up a facies log, where the resulting layers after breakup would be one more than the number of events “Breaking up the sedimentary basin into geologic layers of variable time lengths allows best representing the heterogeneities of the sedimentary layers and in particular to describe both short but important events, such as the deposition of evaporites during the Messinian salinity crisis (major crisis in the Mediterranean Sea that occurred 5.3 million years ago, and lasted 500 000 years maximum), and much longer events, such as the formation of the Mediterranean substrate before this Messinian crisis (more than 240 million years of geological history).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stratigraphic forward modeling disclosed by Harris (723) with the separate modeling of types of sediment transport disclosed by Granjeon (096). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately perform stratigraphic forward modeling (Granjeon (096) Figure 3).
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (723) in view of Marchionda, E. “Facies analysis and stratigraphic-sedimentological modelling of the Upper Jurassic Arab Formation (onshore field, Abu Dhabi, UAF)” (henceforth “Marchionado (Thesis)”). Harris (723) and Marchionda (Thesis) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of stratigraphical modeling, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of geological simulations.
With regard to claim 8, Harris (723) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: 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, and wherein the step of determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated to model each facies log comprises 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.
However, Marchionada (Thesis) teaches:
receiving facies logs of 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, and wherein the step of determining a number of layers of deposited sedimentary elements to be simulated to model each facies log comprises 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. (Marchionda (Thesis) Figure 3.6
PNG
media_image6.png
451
597
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stratigraphic forward modeling disclosed by Harris (723) with the correlating well logs disclosed by Marchionda (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately perform stratigraphic forward modeling (Marchionda (Thesis) Fgiure 3.6)
With regard to claim 9, Harris (723) in view of Marchionda (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 8, and further teaches wherein the identification of parts of the facies logs corresponding to a same time interval comprises:
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 logs corresponding to two wells respectively, from the environmental factors logs associated to each facies log, and inferring the parts of the facies logs corresponding to a same time interval from the established correlations. Marchionda (Thesis) Figure 3.6 gamma ray log is plotted alongside facies (environment conditions to infer environmental factor) which is used to distinguish between facies (inferring parts of the facies log))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stratigraphic forward modeling disclosed by Harris (723) with the correlating well logs disclosed by Marchionda (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately perform stratigraphic forward modeling (Marchionda (Thesis) Fgiure 3.6)
With regard to claim 10, Harris (723) in view of Marchionda (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 8, and further teaches wherein the determining step further comprises:
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. (Harris (723) Figure 6 all the inputs parameters, including sedimentation rate are modified and thickness are adjusted to match well log data)
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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