DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 16 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 December 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 6 December 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks pages 7-8 argue:
Claim 1 as amended recites (in amended step e) that the "prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation [is] based on the strain maps as a primary predictive tool." This feature is not taught or suggested by either applied reference. In particular, Berard is cited both in the Final Office Action (page 9) and in the Advisory Action (first page of continuation sheets) for a statement, in paragraph [0057] of Berard, that strains can "assist understanding" of hydrocarbon accumulation. Without making any concession or admission concerning Berard's teaching of the recited feature prior to the present amendment, Berard does not require (or even suggest) using strain as the primary predictive tool (as is now recited in the amended claim 1).
This argument is unpersuasive.
Berard paragraph 57 discloses:
Basin and petroleum systems modeling may assess generation, migration, and accumulation of hydrocarbons. Quantities such as pore pressure, geomechanical stresses and strains, temperature, and fluid potentials can assist understanding of a sedimentary basin and provide for an estimation of hydrocarbon generation, migration, and accumulation.
Estimation of hydrocarbon accumulation with strains of a basin corresponds to predicting hydrocarbon accumulation from strain maps. See further Berard figure 18. Assisting in understanding the sedimentary basin for an estimation of hydrocarbon accumulation using the noted quantities corresponds with using the quantities as primary predictors of hydrocarbon accumulation.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8 December 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 has been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, examiner's objection(s) to the claim(s) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17 and 24 were cancelled. Accordingly, examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 24 under § 112 is withdrawn. However, the following new rejection is made as follows:
§112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specification page 2 line 30 states “e. prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation from the strain maps.” This fails to disclose any detail beyond the prediction being “from” the strain maps. To the extent that the instant claim amendment “e. prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation based on the strain maps as a primary predictive tool” amounts to more than a recitation of making the prediction with more specificity than the prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation being “from” the strain maps; this additional specificity is unsupported by Specification page 2 line 30.
Specification page 24 lines 24-29 state:
• Using the computed strains and comparing these strain maps with the fields and hydrocarbon accumulations, found they match.
• Therefore, the invented workflow is a great workflow to predict the hydrocarbon accumulations.
• It is found that, the hydrocarbon accumulations are following some trends, and therefore giving the name of hydrocarbon belts.
Accordingly, supposedly the strain maps and pre-existing hydrocarbon accumulations map “match” and follow “some trends.” An alleged matching or allegation of the existence of a trend does not articulate what the matching correspondence is or what the trend is which is followed. Accordingly, this disclosure provides no further teaching being a general allegation that hydrocarbon accumulations can be predicted from strain maps. Accordingly, Specification page 24 lines 24-29 fail to provide any further specificity than the disclosure of Specification page 2 line 30 discussed immediately above.
Specification page 25 lines 24-25 states “a map indicating hydrocarbon accumulation, wherein the map is gained by a method of prediction according to one of the above noted features.” The prediction being somehow in accordance with features is a relationship no more specific than the prediction being “from” those respective features. Furthermore, the alleged “noted features” gives no primacy to strain maps. Accordingly, Specification page 25 lines 24-25 fails to provide written description support for the identified limitation of claim 1.
Specification figure 1 shows a flowchart where “31: Hydrocarbon accumulation” and “34: Strain Maps” are combined as input to “35: Hydrocarbon Belts.” Specification figure 1 does not show strain maps (34) as any kind of input to hydrocarbon accumulation (31). Accordingly, Specification figure 1 fails to provide written description support for the identified limitation of claim 1.
Specification page 34 lines 19-22 state “The hydrocarbon accumulations show a relation with the low strain areas. Some of those are showing a strict trend, which means they are tectonically related and therefore named hydrocarbon belts.” The disclosure of “a relation” with low strain areas does not specify whether that relation is a positive correlation, negative correlation, or some other relationship. Furthermore, the existence of some unidentified relationship between variables does not specifically indicate that the strain maps are a primary predictor for hydrocarbon accumulation. This disclosure amounts to no more than a teaching that hydrocarbon accumulation can be generally predicted “from” strain maps. Accordingly, Specification page 34 lines 19-22 fails to provide written description support for the identified limitation of claim 1.
Having reviewed the disclosure of the Specification, the Examiner finds no written description support for strain maps being “as a primary predictive tool” as now claimed.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
§112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “primary” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “primary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The Specification never once uses the term “primary.” Accordingly, the Specification does nothing to further define what “primary” means beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. However, under the plain meaning a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether any particular predictive tool which used strain maps as a part of predicting hydrocarbon accumulations is using the strain maps as a primary predictive tool or whether the predictive tool used strain maps in some non-primary predictive role.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0205531 A1 Berard, et al. (cited in IDS dated 14 January 2025) [herein “Berard”] in view of US 2016/0349389 A1 Walters, et al. [herein “Walters”].
Claim 1 recites “1. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region.” Berard paragraph 57 discloses “Basin and petroleum systems modeling may assess generation, migration, and accumulation of hydrocarbons.” Modeling to assess accumulation of hydrocarbons correspond with predicting hydrocarbon accumulation.
Claim 1 further recites “comprising the following steps of: a. generation of a geological basin model.” Berard paragraph 56 discloses “Sedimentary basins can be modeled using numerical techniques such as, for example, the finite element method. Such basins can include one or more faults.” Berard paragraph 58 discloses “each element has an associated set of properties, for example, lithology (e.g., type of the material), porosity, temperatures, pore pressure, etc. Alignment of a grid for finite elements with geological features such as layer horizons and faults can help to provide an accurate and efficient simulation.” See further Berard ¶100.
Claim 1 further recites “b. generation of a geomechanical model.” Berard paragraph 139 discloses “a geomechanics simulator may include modules for modeling compaction and subsidence; well drilling and completion integrity; cap-rock and fault-seal integrity; mechanically-driven reservoir behavior; thermal recovery; CO2 disposal; etc.” A geomechanics simulator corresponds with a geomechanical modeling.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the generation of a geomechanical model comprises the following steps of: b.a. seismic Inversion.” Furthermore, Berard paragraph 193 discloses “consider applying an inversion process in the geomechanics portion 550 of the workflow 500 to tune one or more boundary conditions 570.” Berard paragraph 242 teaches seismology for performing an inversion.
Claim 1 further recites “and detailed rock physics analysis including fluid substitution modelling.” Berard paragraph 244 discloses “a package may implement a boundary element method (BEM). Such a package may provide for characterization and modeling of subseismic fractures, which may facilitate better drilling decisions (e.g., using fundamental principles of physics that govern rock deformation).” Fundamental physics that govern rock deformation correspond with a detailed rock physics analysis.
Berard paragraph 152 discloses:
A stimulation design workflow may provide estimates of proppant placement, fracture network dimensions, and reservoir penetration based on formation properties such as, for example, one or more of reservoir fluid rheology, leakoff coefficient, permeability, and closure stress.
Performing fracture characterization and stimulation design workflow based on a reservoir fluid rheology is including fluid substation in the modeling. See further Berard ¶ 187 (“consider the density and sonic log processing.”).”
Claim 1 further recites “b.b. pre-stack Seismic Data conditioning.” Berard paragraph 79 discloses “one or more attribute modules may be provided for processing seismic data. As an example, attributes may include geometrical attributes (e.g., dip angle, azimuth, continuity, seismic trace, etc.). Such attributes may be part of a structural attributes library.” Processing seismic data before performing the inversion corresponds with pre-stack seismic data conditioning.
Claim 1 further recites “b.c. pre-stack amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) simultaneous inversion.” Berard does not explicitly disclose pre-stack amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) inversion; however, in analogous art of Walters paragraph 53 teaches “The Aki-Richards equation below is written in a more intuitive sense and is the basis for amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) and pre-stack inversion methods.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Berard and Walters. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use AVO pre-stack inversion methods into the system of geological modeling workflow because these Aki-Richards equations are an art recognized linear approximation method suitable for performing seismic inversion. See Walters ¶53 and MPEP §2144.07.
Claim 1 further recites “b.d. prediction of mechanical properties based on porosity correlations derived from core results.” Berard paragraph 82 discloses “an earth model may be characterized by a porosity property.” Berard paragraph 75 discloses “wellbore framework includes features for petrophysics (core and log), geology, drilling, reservoir and production engineering, and geophysics.” Core petrophysics features correspond core results.
Claim 1 further recites “and b.e. generation of a 1D geomechanical model.” Berard paragraph 169 lines 6-8 disclose “Single dimensional (e.g., 1D) geomechanical models may include logscale resolution along a bore (e.g., a well, etc.).” A 1D geomechanical model corresponds with a generated 1D geomechanical model.
Claim 1 further recites “c. generation of an integrated model.” Berard figure 5 shows integration of various modules including “Geomechanics” (550) with a “DFN” (530) and many others. This integrated workflow of different things corresponds with the broadest reasonable interpretation of an integrated model. See further Berard ¶¶139 and 143.
Claim 1 further recites “d. generation of a strain map based on the information obtained in steps a to c.” Berard paragraph 249 line 7 disclose “computing displacement, strain and stress fields.” Computing a strain field corresponds with generating a strain map.
Claim 1 further recites “e. prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation based on the strain maps as a primary predictive tool.” Berard paragraph 57 discloses:
Basin and petroleum systems modeling may assess generation, migration, and accumulation of hydrocarbons. Quantities such as pore pressure, geomechanical stresses and strains, temperature, and fluid potentials can assist understanding of a sedimentary basin and provide for an estimation of hydrocarbon generation, migration, and accumulation.
Estimation of hydrocarbon accumulation with strains of a basin corresponds to predicting hydrocarbon accumulation from strain maps. See further Berard figure 18. Assisting in understanding the sedimentary basin for an estimation of hydrocarbon accumulation corresponds with using the quantities as primary predictors of hydrocarbon accumulation.
Claim 2 further recites “2. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the geological basin model further comprises at least one of the following steps of:
a. determination of Horizons and faults;
b. restoration and backstripping to identify the tectonic events;
c. modeling porosity;
d. modeling pressure;
e. modeling porosity-permeability relationship.
From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “modeling porosity.”
Berard paragraph 56 discloses “Sedimentary basins can be modeled using numerical techniques such as, for example, the finite element method. Such basins can include one or more faults.” Berard paragraph 58 discloses “each element has an associated set of properties, for example, lithology (e.g., type of the material), porosity, temperatures, pore pressure, etc. Alignment of a grid for finite elements with geological features such as layer horizons and faults can help to provide an accurate and efficient simulation.” See further Berard ¶100. Finite element modeling of a basin including a porosity property corresponds with modeling a porosity with the geological basin model.
Claim 3 further recites “3. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 2, wherein the step of modeling pressure further comprises at least one of the following steps of:
a. calibration of the pore pressure model;
b. application of the pore pressure model to the geological region.
From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “application of the pore pressure model to the geological region.”
Berard paragraph 56 discloses “Sedimentary basins can be modeled using numerical techniques such as, for example, the finite element method. Such basins can include one or more faults.” Berard paragraph 58 discloses “each element has an associated set of properties, for example, lithology (e.g., type of the material), porosity, temperatures, pore pressure, etc. Alignment of a grid for finite elements with geological features such as layer horizons and faults can help to provide an accurate and efficient simulation.” Finite element modeling of a pore pressure property corresponds with application of a pore pressure model for the region.
Claim 4 further recites “4. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the geological basin model comprises mechanical stratigraphy.” Berard paragraph 167 line 6 discloses “stratigraphic correlation and isopach mapping.” Stratigraphic correlation here corresponds with a mechanical stratigraphy.
Claim 5 further recites “5. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the geological basin model comprises the step of modeling permeability.” Berard paragraph 152 discloses:
A stimulation design workflow may provide estimates of proppant placement, fracture network dimensions, and reservoir penetration based on formation properties such as, for example, one or more of reservoir fluid rheology, leakoff coefficient, permeability, and closure stress.
A permeability formation property corresponds with a modeled permeability.
Claim 6 further recites “6. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the geological basin model further comprises at least one of the following steps of:
a. sediment decompaction;
b. acquisition of burial history of the geological region.
From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “b. Acquisition of burial history of the geological region.”
Berard paragraph 197 discloses “can predict pore pressure, for example, with respect to compaction (e.g., from past geologic times to present day).” Compaction from past geologic times to present day correspond with an acquisition of burial history for the region.
Claim 7 further recites “7. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the geological basin model comprises the step of modeling overpressure of the geological region.” Berard paragraph 202 disclose:
The principal vertical stress, referred to at times as overburden stress, is caused by the weight of rock overlying a measurement point. Its vertical gradient is known as the litho-static gradient. The minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are the other two principal stresses. Their vertical gradients, which may vary widely by basin and lithology, tend to be controlled by local and regional stresses, mainly through tectonics.
The overburden stress corresponds to overpressure of the geological region.
Claim 9 further recites “9. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the generation of a geomechanical model further comprises prediction of mechanical properties based on porosity correlations derived from core results.” Berard paragraph 82 discloses “an earth model may be characterized by a porosity property.” Berard paragraph 75 discloses “wellbore framework includes features for petrophysics (core and log), geology, drilling, reservoir and production engineering, and geophysics.” Core petrophysics features correspond core results.
Claim 9 further recites “and wherein the prediction of mechanical properties based on porosity correlations derived from core results further comprises at least one of that:
a. porosity cubes are sourced from reservoir models;
b. in overburden and dense units separating reservoir zones, the prediction of mechanical properties is based on co-kriging upscaled well logs; and
c. mechanical property profiles are sourced from 1D-geomechanics models.
From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “c. Mechanical property profiles are sourced from 1 D-geomechanics models.”
Berard paragraph 75 discloses “wellbore framework includes features for petrophysics (core and log), geology, drilling, reservoir and production engineering, and geophysics.” Berard paragraph 187 disclose “the 3D MEM block 556, include populating a model (e.g., grid cells, grid nodes, surfaces, etc.) with one or more types of properties, values, etc. (e.g., consider mechanical properties and pore fluid pressures).” Berard paragraph 189 discloses:
populating a model with rock properties that may be, for example, derived from dipole
sonic data, density and/or one or more other sources (e.g., consider populating with a variety of petrophysical properties).
Deriving model rock properties from petrophysical properties including petrophysics features of a core, corresponds to a prediction of mechanical properties based on porosity correlations derived from core results.
Berard paragraph 169 lines 6-8 disclose “Single dimensional (e.g., 1D) geomechanical models may include logscale resolution along a bore (e.g., a well, etc.).” The 1D geomechanical model corresponds with a 1D geomechanical model source of data for generating respective model rock properties.
Furthermore, Berard paragraph 189 discloses “process may include upscaling property profiles and distributing property values in one or more portions of a grid (e.g., as to surfaces, grid cells, grid nodes, etc.). Berard paragraph 143 disclose “simulators may allow permeability updating of a reservoir model.”
Claim 10 further recites “10. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, further comprising the step of creating a structural model, wherein the method further comprises the step of estimating 3D static and dynamic of the geomechanics model.” Berard paragraph 196 disclose “FIG. 5, the geomechanical portion 550 includes the static 3D mechanical modeling block 556, the density and/or sonic log processing block 560.” The static 3D mechanical modeling corresponds with a 3D static for the geomechanics model. See further Berard paragraph 194.
Berard paragraph 143 discloses “simulator to perform 3D static and/or 4D flow-, pressure-, and temperature-coupled calculations for rock stresses, deformations, and failure.” 3D static is static. 4D corresponds with dynamic. Berard paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “an additional temporal dimension may make such models 3D and 4D overall.” The temporal dimension of 4D corresponds with the modeling being a dynamic modeling.
Claim 11 further recites “11. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 10, comprising the step of fault and fracture analysis.” Berard paragraph 145 discloses “A geomechanics simulator may include one or more modules that can model faults, fractures, etc.” Modeling faults and fractures corresponds with a fault and fracture analysis.
Claim 12 further recites “12. Method a of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 11, comprising the steps of: a. generating a discrete fracture network; b. upscaling the discrete fracture network into the static geomechanics model.” Berard paragraph 185 discloses “results of such a model as provided by the geomechanics portion 550, as well as, for example, one or more features of a geological model, such as a fracture network (e.g., a DFN), for example, as provided by the borehole structural geology portion 510.”
Berard paragraph 196 disclose “FIG. 5, the geomechanical portion 550 includes the static 3D mechanical modeling block 556, the density and/or sonic log processing block 560.” Berard paragraph 189 discloses “process may include upscaling property profiles and distributing property values in one or more portions of a grid (e.g., as to surfaces, grid cells, grid nodes, etc.).” Upscaling properties for the geomechancis portion of the workflow corresponds with upscaling into the static geomechanics model.
Claim 13 further recites “13. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 10, wherein the structural model includes information about tectonic stresses in a geological region.” Berard paragraph 249 discloses:
a system may provide for one or more of modeling 3D loading conditions representing a tectonic regime (e.g., normal, thrust, or strike-slip fault), gravity field, and effective stress; computing fault mechanical interaction in response to the applied tectonic loading (e.g., as opposed to standard elastic dislocation methods); computing displacement, strain and stress fields, and associated attributes in a surrounding volume
The tectonic regime and applied tectonic loading correspond with modeling tectonic stresses in the geological region.
Claim 14 further recites “14. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 10, wherein the geological basin model and the geo-mechanical model are combined with the structural model to generate the strain maps.” Berard figure 5 shows integration of various modules including “Geomechanics” (550) with a “DFN” (530) and many others. Berard paragraph 249 line 7 disclose “computing displacement, strain and stress fields.” Computing a strain field corresponds with generating a strain map.
Claim 15 further recites “15. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 10, wherein the structural model is combined with the integrated model.” Berard figure 5 shows integration of various modules including “Geomechanics” (550) with a “DFN” (530) and many others. Berard figure 5 shows “static 3D MEM.” At least the static 3D MEM corresponds with structural model being combined with the integrated geomechanics of (550).
Claim 16 further recites “16. Method a of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the generation of an integrated model further comprises at least one of the following steps of:
f. 3D mechanical properties population;
g. mechanical properties and stress model;
h. pore pressure preparation at selected time-steps;
i. 3D pre-production stress modelling and calibration.
From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “a. 3D Mechanical Properties Population.”
Berard paragraph 187 disclose “the 3D MEM block 556, include populating a model (e.g., grid cells, grid nodes, surfaces, etc.) with one or more types of properties, values, etc. (e.g., consider mechanical properties and pore fluid pressures).” Populating the 3D MEM model with mechanical properties corresponds with a 3D mechanical properties population step.
Furthermore, Berard paragraph 143 discloses “simulators may allow permeability updating of a reservoir model at one or more selected time-steps, as well as, for example, updating of mechanical properties in the geomechanics model.”
Claim 18 further recites “18. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the step of generation of strain maps comprises the following steps of: a. modeling of overburden stress of the geological region.” Berard paragraph 202 disclose:
The principal vertical stress, referred to at times as overburden stress, is caused by the weight of rock overlying a measurement point. Its vertical gradient is known as the litho-static gradient. The minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are the other two principal stresses. Their vertical gradients, which may vary widely by basin and lithology, tend to be controlled by local and regional stresses, mainly through tectonics.
Claim 18 further recites “b. modeling of effective stress of the geological region.” Berard paragraph 249 discloses:
a system may provide for one or more of modeling 3D loading conditions representing a tectonic regime (e.g., normal, thrust, or strike-slip fault), gravity field, and effective stress; computing fault mechanical interaction in response to the applied tectonic loading (e.g., as opposed to standard elastic dislocation methods); computing displacement, strain and stress fields, and associated attributes in a surrounding volume
Claim 18 further recites “c. modeling of pore stress of the geological region.” Berard paragraph 197 disclose “an analysis may be performed as to stress and/or strain distribution, influence of pore pressure, stress tensors, Mohr-cycle analysis, etc.” A pore pressure influence on stress and/or strain distribution corresponds with a pore stress.
Claim 19 further recites “19. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the strain maps indicate regions of high and low strain.” Berard paragraph 197 disclose “an analysis may be performed as to stress and/or strain distribution, influence of pore pressure, stress tensors, Mohr-cycle analysis, etc.” The distribution of strain indicates both high and low strain values. See further Berard paragraph 200 (“The magnitudes and orientations of these three principal stresses may be determined by the tectonic regime in the region and by depth, pore pressure, temperature, rock properties, faults, fractures, etc.”).
Claim 20 further recites “20. Method of prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation in a geological region according to claim 1, wherein the prediction of hydrocarbon accumulation includes a delineation of areas where hydrocarbon is trapped, and a prediction of migration pathways for hydrocarbon.” Berard paragraph 64 disclose “modeling and simulation of hydrocarbon generation amounts and trap sizes with captured hydrocarbons.” Captured hydrocarbons in a trap correspond with areas where hydrocarbon is trapped.
Berard paragraph 57 discloses:
Basin and petroleum systems modeling may assess generation, migration, and accumulation of hydrocarbons. Quantities such as pore pressure, geomechanical stresses and strains, temperature, and fluid potentials can assist understanding of a sedimentary basin and provide for an estimation of hydrocarbon generation, migration, and accumulation.
Estimation of hydrocarbon generation, migration, and accumulation correspond with a prediction of migration and accumulation for hydrocarbon.
Claim 21 further recites “21. A map indicating hydrocarbon accumulation, wherein the map is gained by a method of prediction according to claim 1.” Berard paragraph 57 discloses:
Basin and petroleum systems modeling may assess generation, migration, and accumulation of hydrocarbons. Quantities such as pore pressure, geomechanical stresses and strains, temperature, and fluid potentials can assist understanding of a sedimentary basin and provide for an estimation of hydrocarbon generation, migration, and accumulation.
A model of the accumulated hydrocarbons corresponds to a map indicating hydrocarbon accumulations. Berard paragraph 91 last sentence discloses “display information (e.g., to display the well as part of a model).” A display of the model corresponds to outputting a respective map.
Claim 23 further recites “23. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1.” Berard paragraph 112 disclose “the one or more computers 254, each computer may include one or more processors (e.g., or processing cores) 256 and memory 258 for storing instructions.” Memory is a computer-readable storage medium. See also Berard paragraph 251.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 14 February 2026