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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 - 14 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 – 2, 4, 8, 12 and 14 are currently amended.
Response to Patentability 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: “As explicitly recited in claims 1 and 12, the geological subsurface being modeled is part of a reservoir. As described at page 1, lines 6-16 of present application, models are established to enhance the determination (i.e., quantification) of gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the reservoir, and an improved determination of the gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the reservoir enhances the recovery of those reserves.
As claimed, the method of claim 1 provides for recovery of gas or hydrocarbons from the reservoir, and is thus explicitly tied to a concrete technical application, namely reservoir engineering and hydrocarbon recovery” (emphasis in original)
Examiner notes that merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the modeling relating to part of a reservoir, and further being used in aspects of reservoir engineering and hydrocarbon recovery does not by itself transform the claimed invention into eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues: “Amended claims 1 and 12 further specify that the unstructured mesh model of the geological subsurface is adapted based on measured, on-site well data (as described in the specification at page 1, lines 13-14, discussed above” (emphasis in original)
Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not positively recite a measuring step in the method of claim 1. Further, the measuring of specific data using well-known means and requiring no more than ordinary equipment used in its normal operating capacity would amount to insignificant data gathering (see the instant application Page 1, lines 13 – 14 “Thus, the mesh layers of the model attempt to follow the stratigraphic layers determined by various tools (seismic tools, modeling based on well data, etc.”).
Applicant argues: “The method in claim 1 (and similarly the device in claim 12) further includes outputting a modified model of the geological subsurface of the reservoir, determining gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the reservoir in accordance with the modified model, and recovering gas or hydrocarbons from the reservoir based on the determined gas or hydrocarbon reserves. These steps establish a direct and concrete application of the claimed method and the technical effects achieved, namely the quantification of physical resources (gas or hydrocarbon reserves) contained within the reservoir for real-world recovery operations. The resulting modified model achieves real-world technical effects by improving the determination of gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the reservoir and improving the recovery of gas or hydrocarbons from the reservoir based on the determined reserves” (bolded and underlined emphasis in original) (italicized emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the recited “determining” is a concrete application of the claimed method and the technical effects achieved (see italicized emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Examiner notes that the “determining gas or hydrocarbon reserves” can be reasonably performed in the mind based on viewing the model, and therefore is part of the abstract idea. Further, the recited “recovering gas or hydrocarbons” amounts to the idea of an outcome since the manner in which the “determined gas or hydrocarbon reserves” are relied upon is wholly generic (see Interview dated 12/06/2025 “Examiner noted that positively reciting the use of the model for generic downstream activities (e.g., drilling, etc.) covers insignificant extra-solution activity, … and since said generic downstream activities would cover any known means of achieving the intended results requiring no more than ordinary equipment used in its ordinary capacity”).
Applicant argues: “When claims 1 and 12 are viewed as a whole, it is readily observed that the claimed method and device provides a technical tool that is usable by reservoir engineers to evaluate production scenarios, estimate recoverable hydrocarbons, and plan extraction strategies that enable recovery of gas or hydrocarbons from the reservoir (for example, as described at page 1, lines 6-10 and lines 16-27, and page 2, lines 2-9 of the present application).”
Applicant appears to further argue the recited “determining gas or hydrocarbon reserves” step since it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., at least “plan extraction strategies”) 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).
Applicant argues: “a concrete technical improvement over current approaches. The claimed method reduces the complexity of recalculating full reservoir models and provides a more reliable and operationally useful representation of subsurface stratigraphy for reservoir engineers to execute recovery operations … it is often necessary to completely recalculate a new mesh model to adapt to this modification”
Applicant appears to argue that the claimed “modifying the coordinates for said corner” realizes the improvement over the prior art. Examiner notes that the “modifying” is merely “as a function of” the various determining steps, and therefore, does recite in any significant detail the manner of performing the modifications. Further, the “modifying” does not in any way limit the end purpose or goal of the modified model (i.e., more reliable, operationally useful representation, etc.). Therefore, although it tangibly results in a modified mesh model as contrasted with a completely recalculated mesh model, it does not amount to a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interface configured to” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Looking to the disclosure, the “interface” is interpreted as comprising generic computer hardware (see the instant application Page 15, Lines 20 - 21 “This computer comprises ... an output interface 606 for providing a modified model”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 14 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 adapting an unstructured mesh model of a geological subsurface of a reservoir obtained using measurements of said geological subsurface based on on-site well data, to match said model to a target representation of the geological subsurface, said unstructured mesh model comprising a first reference interface and a second reference interface, the first reference interface being associated with a first target interface, the second reference interface being associated with a second target interface, meshes of the unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within said model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for the corners, the method comprising: for each corner between the first reference interface and the second reference interface: determining a vector at said corner to maximize local variation of t, (u,v) being locally constant along said vector, wherein the parametric values (u, v, t) are determined based on neighboring corners for the determination of said vector; determining a first distance between said corner and said first reference interface along said vector; determining a second distance between said corner and said second reference interface along said vector; determining a third distance between said corner and said first target interface along said vector; determining a fourth distance between said corner and said second target interface along said vector; determining gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the reservoir in accordance with the modified model of the geological subsurface. 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 actions recited at a high-level of generality since it requires no more than judgements and evaluations. 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; modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance; outputting a modified model of the geological subsurface of the reservoir based on the modification of the coordinates for said corner; recovering gas or hydrocarbons from the reservoir based on the determined gas or hydrocarbon reserves. 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 “modifying” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since the manner of performing the modifications is recited at a high-level of generality as being merely a function of the various distances. The “outputting” amounts to insignificant data outputting since the manner in which it is outputted requires no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional means. The “recovering” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since the manner in which the “determined gas or hydrocarbon reserves” are relied upon is wholly generic. 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 recited “modifying” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in their ordinary capacity. The “outputting” comprises well-understood, routine, and conventional means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,”). The “recovering” 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 “determining” and “modifying” and “outputting” requires no more than generic computer functions, and the “recovering” requires no more than ordinary equipment used in its normal capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 8 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 wherein, a current coordinate system is defined along a line passing through said vector, a first intersection between said line and said first reference interface has a coordinate c1 in the current coordinate system, a second intersection between said line and said second reference interface has a coordinate c2 in the current coordinate system, a third intersection between said line and said first target interface has a coordinate c3 in the current coordinate system, a fourth intersection between said line and said second target interface has a coordinate c4 in the current coordinate system, said current corner having an initial coordinate Cc in the current coordinate system, and the modified coordinate Cn of said current corner in the current coordinate system is a function of Cn – Cc = C2 – C4 – (C1 – C3 – C2 + C4) * (Cc – C2)/(C1 – C2); Claim 3 for each corner between the first reference interface and the second reference interface: a second modification of the coordinates of said corner as a function of current coordinates of said current corner and as a function of current coordinates of distant corners that lie within a bounding box around the current corner; Claim 4 wherein, the coordinates of the corners are expressed by a plurality of components, the second modification of the coordinates of said corner comprises includes calculating a median filter or an average of the coordinates of said current corner along at least one component of the coordinates of said distant corners along the at least one component; Claim 5 wherein the bounding box is a function of a distance from said current corner to a fault in said model; Claim 6 wherein the bounding box is a function of an anisotropic direction in said model; Claim 7 wherein the anisotropic direction is parallel to a line passing through said current corner and perpendicular to a fault in said model; Claim 8 wherein, the coordinates of the corners are expressed by a plurality of coordinate components, and the distance between a current corner and a modified current corner, along at least one coordinate component, is less than a threshold value. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, 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 “current coordinate system is defined” and “coordinates of the corners are expressed by” and “anisotropic direction is parallel to” and “distance between” cover mathematical definitions. The “as a function of” and “is a function of” recite performance in combination with a mathematical equation. The “calculating” requires no more than 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 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 9 - 11 recite(s)at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 9 wherein, the model includes at least one fault, the method further comprising: identifying at least one corner having a distance to the at least one fault that is less than a predetermined influence distance. 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 “model includes at least one fault” further limits the parent claim(s) abstract idea “determining” with regard to the model, and without precluding performing 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 further claims: Claim 9 modifying the coordinates of the corner having a distance to the at least one fault that is less than the predetermined influence distance, as a function of modifications determined for a plurality of points having a distance to the at least one fault that is greater than the predetermined influence distance and part of a common interface with the corner having a distance to the at least one fault that is less than the predetermined influence distance; Claim 10 wherein the modifying the coordinates of the corner having a distance to the at least one fault that is less than the predetermined influence distance includes calculating a weighted average; Claim 11 wherein the modification of modifying the coordinates of the corner having a distance to the at least one fault that is less than the predetermined influence distance includes a regression. The “modifying” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since the manner of performing the modifications is recited at a high-level of generality as being merely a function of the various distances. The “calculating” and “includes a regression” further limits the “modifying” to include specific functions, however, the claim does not specific link the specific functions to the abstract idea (i.e. merely includes them). 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 “modifying” and “calculating” and “includes a regression” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in their ordinary capacity. 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): Claim 14 further comprising implementing the method to follow stratigraphic layers of the geological subsurface. 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 “follow stratigraphic layers” merely further limits the model to reflect desired layers in the subsurface by following them, which does not preclude performance in the mind in combination with the parent claim “modifying”. 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 claims: Claim 14 wherein the method is implemented to exploit the gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the geological subsurface. The “exploit the gas or hydrocarbon reserves” recites the idea of an outcome such that it amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Specifically, the use of the model is not explicitly recited, and therefore covers any known implementation to exploit resources in combination with the method of claim 1. 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 “exploit the gas or hydrocarbon reserves” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) device for adapting an unstructured mesh model of a geological subsurface of a reservoir obtained using measurements of said geological subsurface based on on-site well data, to match said model to a target representation of the geological subsurface, said unstructured mesh model comprising a first reference interface and a second reference interface, the first reference interface being associated with a first target interface, the second reference interface being associated with a second target interface, meshes of the unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within said model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for the corners, the device comprising: for each corner between the first reference interface and the second reference interface: determine a vector at said corner to maximize local variation of t, (u,v) being locally constant along said vector, wherein the parametric values (u, v, t) are determined based on neighboring corners for the determination of said vector; determine a first distance between said corner and said first reference interface along said vector; determine a second distance between said corner and said second reference interface along said vector; determine a third distance between said corner and said first target interface along said vector; determine a fourth distance between said corner and said second target interface along said vector; determine gas or hydrocarbon reserves in the reservoir in accordance with the modified model of the geological subsurface. 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 “determine” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality since it requires no more than judgements and evaluations. 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: a circuit configured to perform the “determine” steps; an interface configured to output a modified model of the geological subsurface of the reservoir based on the modification of the coordinates for said corner (see Claim Interpretation); wherein gas or hydrocarbons are recovered from the reservoir based on the determined gas or hydrocarbon reserves. The “circuit” and “interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “output” amounts to insignificant data output since it is outputted at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “are recovered” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since the manner in which the “determine gas or hydrocarbon reserves” are relied upon is wholly generic. 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 “circuit” and “interface 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. Further, the recited “output” covers well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it reasonably includes using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “recovered” 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 “determine” and “output” requires no more than generic computer functions, and the “are recovered” requires no more than ordinary equipment used in its normal capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product to implement the method according to claim 1. As discussed in the analysis for claim 1, it recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product comprising instructions, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the method. The “computer-readable medium” and “comprising instructions, which, when executed by a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The 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-readable medium” and “comprising instructions, which, when executed by a processor” 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. Considering the additional elements of claim 1 in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “determining” and “modifying” and “outputting” 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 claim objections and 101 rejection.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and claim 12 and 13) method “for adapting an unstructured mesh model of a geological subsurface of a reservoir obtained using measurements of said geological subsurface based on on-site well data, to match said model to a target representation of the geological subsurface, said unstructured mesh model comprising a first reference interface and a second reference interface, the first reference interface being associated with a first target interface, the second reference interface being associated with a second target interface, meshes of the unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within said model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for the corners, the method comprising: for each corner between the first reference interface and the second reference interface; determining a vector at said corner to maximize local variation oft, (u,v) being locally constant along said vector wherein the parametric values (u, v, t) are determined based on neighboring corners for the determination of said vector;” and “modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance”, 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. Specifically:
Deny, et al. (US 20040246249) teaches defining cells adapted to critical surfaces of a subsurface to match observed geological domain and a parametric domain. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose meshes of an unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within a model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for corners, and modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance.
Laverne, T. (US 2018/0113235) teaches an unstructured mesh to conform to stratigraphy, including analysis and interpretation of sequence stratigraphy. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose at least determining a vector at said corner, said vector is determined to maximize local variation oft, (u,v) being locally constant along said vector, values of parametric values (u, v, t) being determined based on neighboring corners for the determination of said vector, and the determining intersections are along said vector.
Maric et al. “voFoam – A geometrical Volume of Fluid algorithm on arbitrary unstructured meshes with local dynamic adaptive mesh refinement using OpenFOAM” teaches arbitrary mesh refinement to support a flow. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose meshes of an unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within a model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for corners, and modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance.
Forge et al. (US 2016/0180582) teaches determining a four intersections based on first and second reference interfaces and target interfaces, and then modifying coordinates for the corners based on the intersections. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a vector at said corner, said vector is determined to maximize local variation oft, (u,v) being locally constant along said vector, values of parametric values (u, v, t) being determined based on neighboring corners for the determination of said vector, and the determining intersections are along said vector.
Mallet et al. (US 8600708) teaches perturbing a geological model based on generated a series of equiprobable stochastic vector fields and moving nodes to w new location, and moving nodes based on the level of uncertainty, and the magnitude of a gradient is 1, and model a valid geological-time function t(x,y,z) that does not include local maximum or minimum in the studied domain. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose meshes of an unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within a model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for corners, and modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance.
Dulac et al. (EP 2869096) teaches forward and reverse transformations of a depositional model as uvt-transform. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose meshes of an unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within a model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for corners, and modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance.
Mallet, J. (EP 2778724) teaches computing paleo-geographic coordinates at each node of a given mesh using “control points” constraints on the mesh, and then determining a normal unit vector of the geological-time function t(x,y,z) using the gradient which is normal to the horizon at point (x,y,z), and then generating a pair of unit vectors (u,v), and then installing constrains on (u,v) so that equations are satisfied. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose meshes of an unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within a model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for corners, and modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance.
Mallet et al. (US 9052413) teaches determining a direction and magnitude of stochastic displacement of each vertex in a mesh model in a given constant direction, and then moving nodes in direction of stochastic displacement; and teaches direction of displacement vector reflects uncertainty, and generating a series of equiprobable stochastic coherent vector fields. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose meshes of an unstructured mesh model having corners with coordinates (x, y, z) within a model and with parametric values (u,v,t) within said model, t representing a stratigraphic time for corners, and modifying the coordinates for said corner along said vector as a function of the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance.
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