DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, and 47 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, and 47 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 .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
A new §112 rejection of claims 4 and 5 is made based on the cancelation of claim 3 without substituting corresponding antecedent basis.
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are newly rejected based on the amendment removing the subject matter of previous claim 3 from which they used to depend.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Regarding §101:
Applicant remarks page 10 argues:
Applicant submits that claim 1 does not include a math concept itself, and thus is not sufficient to fall into the category of grouping mathematical relationships. As noted in Ex Parte Alexandre Laloi, Appeal 2025-001442 at 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2025) “.. even the limitations identified by the Examiner as mathematical relationships involve or are based on math concept described in the Specification which is not sufficient to fall into the grouping of mathematical relationships as the math concept itself is not claimed.”
This argument is unpersuasive. This argument amounts to a mere assertion that the specific claim limitation identified by Examiner under step 2A(i) as comprising the abstract idea, allegedly merely involve math rather than reciting math. Examiner disagrees and maintains the identified limitations recite mathematical concepts and do not merely involve mathematical concepts.
For example, Examiner has said “[m]odeling the cell array as having an infinite outer boundary is a mathematical description. Actual physical infinities do not exist. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the infinite outer boundary to be a description of math.” Examiner maintains that “having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space” is purely mathematical. An infinite space and an infinite grid can only exist as a mathematical concept.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Applicant submits that at least " ... transmitting, by the modeling module, the transmissibility factor (Tw) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (Mi) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice" of claim 1 integrates the alleged recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Transmitting the calculated result (transmissibility factor) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice corresponds with insignificant extra solution activity in the form of insignificant outputting. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Transmitting the transmissibility factor (Tw) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (Mi) to a simulator can be considered a practical application of the mathematical computation because it integrates the abstract idea into a technological process-simulation of fluid flow in a reservoir, which is itself a technical improvement in reservoir modeling.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that reservoir simulation and reservoir modeling is a “technological process” in the context of §101. In the context of §101 subject matter eligibility, technological processes are simply all processes which are themselves not abstract ideas. However, reservoir modeling and simulation encompasses performing respective calculations for solving systems of equations for performing the modeling or simulation. Performing mathematical calculation is itself one of the categories of abstract idea in the form of mathematical concepts. Accordingly, showing the claims are integrated into the application of reservoir modeling or simulation, by itself, is not sufficient to demonstrate subject matter eligibility under §101.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Applicant submits that this reasoning is similar to the reasoning used by the Court in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In McRO, a process for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions was found patent eligible due to the step of "applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters." McRO at 1308.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Animation creates a physical image or display. Animation does not fall under any of the three categories of abstract idea. A physical image or display is physical and thus not a mental process. Animation is clearly not one of the distinctly enumerated “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Lastly, animation is not a mathematical concept. While math may have been used as a tool in McRO, the end result of the produced animated lip synchronization animation is more than outputting the result of a mathematical calculation.
In contrast, the instant claims do not involve animation and the end result of transmitting the result of the calculated transmissibility factor is merely outputting the result of the respective mathematical calculations. This distinguishes the instant claims from those in McRO.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Applicant's specification notes several technological improvements. … The FSWC may represent a significant computational saving relative to the existing MPWC method.”
This argument is unpersuasive. Improvements to mathematical calculation are not ‘technological’ improvements in the context of §101; or equivalently, even an improved mathematical calculation is not eligible subject matter under §101. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded that mere improvements to computational cost represent an identification of a technological improvement envisioned by MPEP §2106.05(a) and (f).
Applicant remarks page 12 further argues:
Applicant's Para. [0135] describes "[t]he new FSWC methods may have specialized boundary conditions … the new method may emulate an infinitely large reservoir and couple the infinitely large reservoir to the well-cell model through the link-cells while keeping the computational costs low."
This argument is unpersuasive. An infinitely large reservoir is a mathematical description as infinities do not exist outside of mathematics. As discussed immediately above, improvements to the mathematical calculations are the abstract idea itself. Even an improved mathematical calculation is not eligible subject matter under §101.
Applicant remarks page 13 further argues:
transmitting, by the modeling module, the transmissibility factor (Tw) and the at least one intercell transmissibility multiplier (Mi to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice." These meaningful limitations amount to significantly more than simply receiving or transmitting data over a network.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The transmissibility factor (Tw) and the at least one intercell transmissibility multiplier is the calculated result of the identified abstract idea. The claim literally recites nothing more than “transmitting” these calculated results of the abstract idea to the respective destination. Here, listing the subset of destinations as “a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice" fails to meaningfully confine the claim to a practical application. MPEP §2106.05(f) states:
(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more
Here, the claim lists several different potential fields for destination of the transmission including reservoir simulation, “preprocessing software” or “cloud microservice.” The latter two which are themselves extremely broad. The claim does not currently recite any particularity on how the calculated result is subsequently used or other limitations which confine the claim to a particular technological (non-abstract) application.
Regarding §102/103:
Applicant remarks page 8 states:
…amends independent claim 1 and claim 47 to substantially incorporate claim 3. Accordingly, Applicant submits that independent claim 1 and claim 47 now recite patentable subject matter.
Significant portions of claim 3 are noticeably absent from claims 1 and 47. In particular, previous claim 3 recited “a minimum distance” and Examiner’s reasons for allowance dated 18 June 2025 specifically discusses the minimum distance regarding previous claim 3. The absence of the subject matter previously indicated as allowable over prior art is noted. Applicant’s assertion that claims 1 and 47 now recite patentable subject matter based solely on the inclusion of subject matter from previous claim 3 is found unpersuasive because the noted subject matter is absent.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 have been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's objection(s) to the claim(s) are withdrawn. However, a new object is made as follows:
Claim 37 recites “a shape function (f[[(x,x’)), the ….” The opening brackets ‘[[‘ appear to be typographic error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 44 and 46 have been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's rejection under § 112 is withdrawn. However, the following new rejection is made as follows:
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 4 and 5 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.
Claims 4 and 5 recites “the point on the common face.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the point.
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, 2, 4-12, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A free-space well connection method of determining parameters for modeling a reservoir, …, the modeling module having data representing a grid with a well-cell and at least one link-cell (204i) each of the at least one link-cell having a common face (
Γ
i
) with the well-cell, the well-cell and the at least one link-cell being a local cell array, the method comprising:
modeling, by the modeling module, the local cell array as having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space around the local cell array for determination of parameters for the well-cell;
determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
);
splitting, by the modeling module, the common face (
Γ
i
) into more than one boundary element of a plurality of boundary elements; and
The modeling having data representing a grid of respective cells and faces is a mathematical construction and mathematical representation of the data.
Modeling the cell array as having an infinite outer boundary is a mathematical description. Actual physical infinities do not exist. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the infinite outer boundary to be a description of math.
Determining the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) corresponds to performing respective mathematical calculations using respective mathematical equations. Specification page 40 lines 16-17 states “Once the
P
0
value is known, it is just a straightforward application of Eqs. (7) and (6) for the modeling module 102 to obtain the final values of
T
w
.” Accordingly, the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) is defined by the Specification according to explicitly recited equations 6 and 7 of the Specification. Therefore, the claimed determining of the mathematical entity
T
w
is explicitly determination of mathematical subject matter.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into boundary elements is further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
…the method being conducted by a computer system having a processor and non-transitory memory that stores data including instructions to be executed by the processor, the processor executing a modeling module stored in the memory (120), …
…
transmitting, by the modeling module, the transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice.
The computer system, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Transmitting the calculated result (transmissibility factor) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice corresponds with insignificant extra solution activity in the form of insignificant outputting. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same in step 2B here.
The claim further recites:
…
transmitting, by the modeling module, the transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network)
Transmitting to an unidentified preprocessing software or cloud microservice corresponds with transmitting data over a network, e.g. using the Internet.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising modeling, by the modeling module, the at least one link-cell, as having infinitesimal thickness, by assuming the flow through the common face is the same as the flow out of the link-cell through an external face of the link-cell, and a pressure difference between inner and outer faces of the common face (
Γ
i
) is proportional to a volumetric fluid flowrate between the well-cell and one of the at least one link-cells across a thin layer of equivalent transmissibility (
T
0
i
,
i
).
An infinitesimal thickness is further mathematical description. Claim 2 further describes the mathematical construction of the grid and cells.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is a point closest to a well perforation (
Γ
w
).
This is a mathematical description of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is a center point of a common face (
Γ
i
).
This is a mathematical description of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein if the minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is not less than a predetermined threshold, the common face (
Γ
i
) is considered a boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements.
The minimum distance is mathematical subject matter in the form of geometry. Determining whether or not a common face is a boundary element using these mathematical conditions corresponds to a description of a mathematical algorithm in the form of prose. Lastly, treating respective faces as boundary elements is further mathematical description of the mathematical construction of the grid.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the modeling module, a minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on a boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements; and
splitting, by the modeling module, the boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements into more than one boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements if the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the boundary element of the plurality of boundary elements is less than a predetermined threshold.
The minimum distance is mathematical subject matter in the form of geometry. The determining of further mathematical entities is further mathematical description.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into boundary elements corresponds with further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid. Determining a threshold condition is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. A method as in claim 7, wherein the determination of whether the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) is less than a predetermined threshold comprises determining whether one of the ratio of the square of the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) to an area of the common face (
Γ
i
) and the ratio of the minimum distance (
d
i
w
) to a square root of the area of the common face (
Γ
i
) is less than a predetermined ratio threshold.
The minimum distance is mathematical subject matter in the form of geometry. Comparison with a threshold is a mathematical operation. The square of the minimum distance is further mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. A method as in claim 1, wherein the more than one boundary element is four boundary elements.
The number of boundary elements of the mathematical construction is mathematical description.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. A method as in claim 1, wherein the more than one boundary element is nine boundary elements.
The number of boundary elements of the mathematical construction is mathematical description.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. A method as in claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the modeling module, a bounding box for one or more of a well perforation (
Γ
w
) and a well perforation segment; and
splitting, by the modeling module, the one or more of the well perforation (
Γ
w
) and a well perforation segment into more than one segment if the bounding box size is above a predetermined threshold.
The determining of a bounding box is a mathematical determination of geometry.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into segments corresponds with further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. A method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the determination of whether the bounding box size is above a predetermined threshold comprises determining whether the maximum dimension (
m
a
x
b
w
/
b
c
) of a ratio of well perforation (segment) bounding box (
b
w
) to a well-cell bounding box (
b
c
) exceeds a predetermined ratio threshold.
Calculation of the maximum dimension and ration is mathematical calculation. Comparison with a threshold is further mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cell array is analyzed, by the modeling module, by dividing the interface between the well-cell and a link-cell of each of the at least one link-cell and an external environment into "layers", with an "inner layer" representing a relationship of flow between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) and the common face (
Γ
0
i
≡
∂
Ω
0
∩
∂
Ω
i
), a "link layer" representing a relationship of flow between the common face (
Γ
0
i
) and the outer link-cell face (
Γ
i
∞
≡
∂
Ω
i
∩
∂
Ω
∞
), and an "outer layer" representing the relationship of flow between the outer link-cell face (
Γ
i
∞
) and the remote boundary (
Γ
∞
) of an infinite domain (
Ω
∞
).
Analyzing by performing respective mathematical operations is mathematical description of a mathematical algorithm in prose. The inner and outer layers correspond with further mathematical description of the geometric construction.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
16. A method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) comprises:
evaluating, by the modeling module, inner layer equations to form at least one inner boundary condition relation representing physical relationships in the inner layer.
Evaluating inner layer equations is an explicit recitation to perform mathematical calculations based on mathematical equations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 26 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
26. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), uses a total number of boundary condition relations, the total number of boundary condition relations being three times the number of boundary elements of the local cell array plus one (
3
n
+
1
).
The number of boundary condition relationships (equations) and number of boundary elements is further mathematical description.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 26 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 26 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 27 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
27. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), comprises assembling all boundary condition relations in a matrix and a right-hand side vector of equation coefficients.
Assembling boundary conditions relations in a matrix and vector equation coefficients is mathematical subject matter recited in prose.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 27 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 27 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 34 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
34. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a sum of values of the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
∑
i
M
i
) is equal to a total number of link-cells in a set of active link-cells (
A
) in the local cell array.
The sum of values being equal to a total number is a mathematical evaluation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 34 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 34 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 35 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
35. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising transmitting the one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a reservoir simulation that simulates fluid flow in a reservoir and using, by the reservoir simulator, the one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to simulate fluid flow in a reservoir.
The well connection transmissibility factor and inter-cell transmissibility multiplier are further recitation of mathematical entities.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 35 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 35 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 37 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
37. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), accounts for a shape function (
f
[
[
x
,
x
'
), the shape function representing variations in flux over the common face (
Γ
i
).
The shape function is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 37 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 37 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 38 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
38. A method as claimed in claim 1 further comprising: …
determining, by the modeling module, whether the well-cell is active, based on the inputs.
Determining whether a well-cell is active corresponds to either a mathematical evaluation (mathematical subject matter) and/or mental processes in the form of evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 38 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
receiving, determining, or inputting, by the modeling module, inputs for determining at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier and at least one well connection transmissibility factor; and
Receiving, determining, or otherwise inputting ‘inputs’ corresponds with data gathering recited at an extremely high level of generality. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 38 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of insignificant data gathering: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 40 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
40. A method as in claim 1, further comprising: if a hydraulic conductivity (K) is a non-diagonal tensor within a predetermined threshold, applying mapping, by the modeling module, to spatial coordinates, making the hydraulic conductivity (K) a diagonal tensor.
Applying mapping to make a diagonal tensor is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 40 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 40 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 41 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
41. A method as in claim 1, further comprising:
if a hydraulic conductivity (K) is not a scalar within a predetermined threshold, applying mapping, by the modeling module, to spatial coordinates, making the hydraulic conductivity (K) a scalar.
Being a scalar within a threshold is a mathematical condition. Applying mapping to make a scalar is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 41 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 41 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 44 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
44. A method as in claim 38, further comprising identifying of inactive cells based on a determination, by the modeling module, that the cell has one or more of a pore volume that is below a predetermined pore volume threshold, a permeability below a predetermined permeability threshold, and a transmissibility below a predetermined transmissibility threshold.
Determining whether a pore volume, permeability, or transmissibility value is above or below a threshold is a mathematical comparison.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 44 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 44 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 46 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
46. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), accounts, by the modeling module for a skin factor (S) which is incorporated by the equation,
r
-
w
=
r
w
e
-
S
, where
r
w
is well bore radius.
Modeling a skin factor with the recited equation is explicit recitation of a mathematical equation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 46 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 46 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 47 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
…, the modeling module having data representing a grid with a well-cell and at least one link-cell, each of the at least one link-cell having a common face (
Γ
i
) with the well-cell, the well-cell and the at least one link-cell being a local cell array, the modeling module configured to:
model the local cell array as having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space around the local cell array for determination of parameters for the well-cell; and
determine one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
);
split the common face (
Γ
i
) into more than one boundary element of a plurality of boundary elements; and
The modeling having data representing a grid of respective cells and faces is a mathematical construction and mathematical representation of the data.
Modeling the cell array as having an infinite outer boundary is a mathematical description. Actual physical infinities do not exist. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the infinite outer boundary to be a description of math.
Determining the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) corresponds to performing respective mathematical calculations using respective mathematical equations. Specification page 40 lines 16-17 states “Once the
P
0
value is known, it is just a straightforward application of Eqs. (7) and (6) for the modeling module 102 to obtain the final values of
T
w
.” Accordingly, the well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) is defined by the Specification according to explicitly recited equations 6 and 7 of the Specification. Therefore, the claimed determining of the mathematical entity
T
w
is explicitly determination of mathematical subject matter.
Splitting the modeled mathematical representation into boundary elements is further description of the mathematical description and construction of the mathematical representation of the grid.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 47 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
47. A computer system having a processor and non-transitory memory that stores data including instructions to be executed by the processor, the processor configured to carry out a free-space well connection method of determining parameters for modeling a reservoir by executing a modeling module stored in the memory (120), …
…
transmit the transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice.
The computer system, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Transmitting the calculated result (transmissibility factor) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice corresponds with insignificant extra solution activity in the form of insignificant outputting. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 47 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same in step 2B here.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
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, 4, 5, 15, 16, 27, 35, 37, 38, 46, and 47
Claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, 27, 35, 37, 38, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0212773 A1 Pecher [herein “Pecher”] in view of US patent 8,489,374 B2 Dogru [herein “Dogru”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A free-space well connection method of determining parameters for modeling a reservoir.” Pecher abstract discloses “determining one or more parameters of the one or more wells based at least in part on the fluid flow.” Pecher title discloses “SIMULATING A HYDROCARBON FIELD USING A MULTI-POINT WELL CONNECTION METHOD.” Simulating a hydrocarbon field corresponds with modeling a reservoir. The multi-point well connection method is a well connection method.
Claim 1 further recites “the method being conducted by a computer system having a processor and non-transitory memory that stores data including instructions to be executed by the processor, the processor executing a modeling module stored in the memory (120).” Pecher paragraph 139 discloses “computer system 501A” and “one or more processors 504, which is (or are) connected to one or more storage media 506.” Pecher paragraph 141 disclose “Storage media 506 may include one or more different forms of memory including semiconductor memory devices such as ….”
Claim 1 further recites “the modeling module having data representing a grid with a well-cell and at least one link-cell each of the at least one link-cell having a common face (
Γ
i
) with the well-cell, the well-cell and the at least one link-cell being a local cell array.” Pecher paragraph 110 disclose “In 306, the field may be divided into grid cells.” Pecher paragraph 49 discloses “Consider a well that may be located exactly between two adjacent grid cells with identical shapes and rock properties.” Grid cells correspond with at least a represented grid with cells.
Pecher paragraph 49 disclose “The cell containing the well, ‘well cell’, may communicate with it directly via Eq. 1, while the other cell may be affected by the well indirectly via inter-cell flow across the shared face.” The well cell is a well-cell. The shared face corresponds with a common face.
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: modeling, by the modeling module, the local cell array as having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space around the local cell array for determination of parameters for the well-cell.” Pecher paragraph 130 discloses “in accordance with various (inner and outer) asymmetries.” Pecher paragraph 57 teaches a boundary integral formulation disclosing “Let the domain of the well cell
i
=
0
be denoted as
Ω
and its entire boundary
Γ
=
δ
Ω
be composed of n faces
Γ
i
adjoining the outer FVM cells
i
>
0
to cell 0, plus m points/curves/surfaces
Γ
w
representing the well perforations.”
But Pecher does not explicitly disclose the local cell array having an infinite outer boundary as an infinite space around the local cell array; however, in analogous art of reservoir simulation, Dogru column 40 lines 47-50 teach “As is known and understood by those skilled in the art, a field-scale simulation model can include, for example, models that span an entire section of an infinity reservoir.” An infinity reservoir is an infinite space around the local cell array.
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 Pecher and Dogru. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use field-scale simulation model of an infinity reservoir into the system of simulating a hydrocarbon field for the advantageous purpose of defining a 3D equivalent well block radius under steady state conditions. See Dogru column 39 lines 47-48 and column 50 lines 45-59.
Claim 1 further recites “and determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
).” Pecher paragraph 66 disclose:
The volumetric rate of fluid flow from cell 0 into cell i, across their shared face
Γ
i
, may be a function of their pressure difference, inter-cell transmissibility
T
i
, and fluid mobility
M
i
.
…
[equation (9)]
The inter-cell transmissibility corresponds with a well connection transmissibility factor. The fluid mobility corresponds with an inter-cell transmissibility multiplier.
Claim 1 further recites “splitting, by the modeling module, the common face (
Γ
i
) into more than one boundary element of a plurality of boundary elements.” Pecher paragraph 49 disclose “The cell containing the well, ‘well cell’, may communicate with it directly via Eq. 1, while the other cell may be affected by the well indirectly via inter-cell flow across the shared face.” The well cell is a well-cell. The shared face corresponds with a common face.
Pecher paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “all internal sources (specifically the well perforations) may be excluded from the domain by interpreting them as part of the boundary
Γ
.” Excluding the internal sources from the domain corresponds to splitting the internal sources of well perforations.
Pecher paragraph 77 discloses:
In practical terms, this may enable generating a well-conditioned, diagonally dominant (due to singularities in BIE) set of algebraic equations for determining any unknown boundary quantities, such as p or q. In the case of support flow, the same approach may help to find Si such that its value compensates for the error in Qi (see Eq. 9) caused by the approximate FVM description of the inter-cell flow rate.
The subscript ‘i' on the support flow Si indicates there is more than one support flow. Accordingly, there is more than one corresponding boundary element associated with the respective BIE equations.
In particular, Pecher paragraph 87 disclose “The initial step may be finding the boundary point x closest to x', splitting the boundary segment/patch around it, and if x=x', treating the integral in the Cauchy principal value sense. In some embodiments, several options may be used for a choice of the actual x' location on the local boundary (
Γ
i
or
Γ
w
).”
Claim 1 further recites “and transmitting, by the modeling module, the transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice.” Pecher paragraph 118 disclose “the simulated filed results may be stored by the system 100 or transmitted to other computer system. In some embodiments, for example, the simulate field results 311 may be used to plan installation of new wells, operations of existing wells, and the like.” Transmitting the simulation results to be used for to plan operations of existing wells corresponds with transmitting to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run.
Claim 4 further recites “4. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is a point closest to a well perforation (
Γ
w
).” Pecher paragraph 87 “The initial step may be finding the boundary point x closest to x', splitting the boundary segment/patch around it, and if x=x', treating the integral in the Cauchy principal value sense. In some embodiments, several options may be used for a choice of the actual x' location on the local boundary (
Γ
i
or
Γ
w
).” Pecher paragraph 77 discloses “point x' in Eq. 14 may be positioned near or on the well-cell face i.”
Claim 5 further recites “5. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point on the common face (
Γ
i
) is a center point of a common face (
Γ
i
).” Pecher paragraph 87 disclose:
The initial step may be finding the boundary point x closest to x', splitting the boundary segment/patch around it, and if x=x', treating the integral in the Cauchy principal value sense. In some embodiments, several options may be used for a choice of the actual x' location on the local boundary (
Γ
i
or
Γ
w
). There may be several options for where to position point x' on
Γ
i
, including geometric centroid, inter-cell connector, or "everywhere" in a double convolution integral sense.
A geometric centroid corresponds with a center point.
Claim 15 further recites “15. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cell array is analyzed, by the modeling module, by dividing the interface between the well-cell and a link-cell of each of the at least one link-cell and an external environment into "layers", with an "inner layer" representing a relationship of flow between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) and the common face (
Γ
0
i
≡
∂
Ω
0
∩
∂
Ω
i
), a "link layer" representing a relationship of flow between the common face (
Γ
0
i
) and the outer link-cell (204i) face (
Γ
i
∞
≡
∂
Ω
i
∩
∂
Ω
∞
).” Pecher paragraph 130 discloses “in accordance with various (inner and outer) asymmetries.” Pecher paragraph 57 teaches a boundary integral formulation disclosing “Let the domain of the well cell
i
=
0
be denoted as
Ω
and its entire boundary
Γ
=
δ
Ω
be composed of n faces
Γ
i
adjoining the outer FVM cells
i
>
0
to cell 0, plus m points/curves/surfaces
Γ
w
representing the well perforations.” The adjoining cells correspond with a local problem and define link-cells. The well cell itself, index 0, corresponds with an inner layer.
Claim 15 further recites “and an "outer layer" representing the relationship of flow between the outer link-cell (204i) face (
Γ
i
∞
) and the remote boundary (
Γ
∞
) of an infinite domain (
Ω
∞
).” Pecher paragraph 130 discloses “in accordance with various (inner and outer) asymmetries.” Pecher paragraph 57 teaches a boundary integral formulation disclosing “Let the domain of the well cell
i
=
0
be denoted as
Ω
and its entire boundary
Γ
=
δ
Ω
be composed of n faces
Γ
i
adjoining the outer FVM cells
i
>
0
to cell 0, plus m points/curves/surfaces
Γ
w
representing the well perforations.”
Pecher does not explicitly disclose an infinite domain; however, in analogous art of reservoir simulation, Dogru column 40 lines 47-50 teach “As is known and understood by those skilled in the art, a field-scale simulation model can include, for example, models that span an entire section of an infinity reservoir.” An infinity reservoir is an infinite domain around the local cell array.
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 Pecher and Dogru. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use field-scale simulation model of an infinity reservoir into the system of simulating a hydrocarbon field for the advantageous purpose of defining a 3D equivalent well block radius under steady state conditions. See Dogru column 39 lines 47-48 and column 50 lines 45-59.
Claim 16 further recites “16. A method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) comprises: evaluating, by the modeling module, inner layer equations to form at least one inner boundary condition relation representing physical relationships in the inner layer.” Pecher paragraph 66 disclose:
The volumetric rate of fluid flow from cell 0 into cell i, across their shared face
Γ
i
, may be a function of their pressure difference, inter-cell transmissibility
T
i
, and fluid mobility
M
i
.
…
[equation (9)]
Pecher paragraph 57 discloses “The pressure values
P
*
of these cells or perforations, and the corresponding flow rates
Q
*
across
Γ
*
, may provide boundary conditions (BCs) for the local problem. If any of the outer cells are inactive or missing, the appropriate global boundary condition may be applied instead.” Providing boundary conditions for the local problem corresponds with forming inner boundary conditions representing physical relations in the inner layer.
Claim 27 further recites “27. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), comprises assembling all boundary condition relations in a matrix and a right-hand side vector of equation coefficients.” Pecher paragraph 66 disclose:
The volumetric rate of fluid flow from cell 0 into cell i, across their shared face
Γ
i
, may be a function of their pressure difference, inter-cell transmissibility
T
i
, and fluid mobility
M
i
.
…
[equation (9)]
Pecher paragraph 75 last sentence discloses “the set of m equations to solve for the
unknown
P
w
,
Q
w
w
=
1
m
vector may be written as [equation (15)].” This set of equations is the mathematical equivalent of a matrix with corresponding vector of equation coefficients. Here,
P
w
,
Q
w
corresponds with boundary condition relations.
Claim 35 further recites “35. A method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising transmitting the one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a reservoir simulation that simulates fluid flow in a reservoir and using, by the reservoir simulator, the one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to simulate fluid flow in a reservoir.” Pecher paragraph 116 disclose “the MPWC method may produce simulated field results 311 that include the parameters of the at least one of the one or more wells simulated by the MPWC method. The simulated field results 311 may include fluid flow in the formation, pressure at the one or more wells, and fluid flow at the one or more wells, and any other parameters that represent operation of the one or more wells.” Results including fluid flow in the formation, pressures, fluid flow at well(s), and other parameters correspond with performing a reservoir simulation that simulates fluid flow in a reservoir using the respective MPWC method transmissibility factors and multipliers.
Claim 37 further recites “37. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), accounts for a shape function (
f
x
,
x
'
), the shape function representing variations in flux over the common face (
Γ
i
).” Pecher paragraph 89 disclose “the boundary integral formulation may be sensitive to the geometry of the local domain, e.g., shape of the well cell and distribution/shapes of its well perforations.” Pecher paragraph 121 below equation 21 further disclose “the shape factor for a well.” The shape factor corresponds with accounting for a shape function.
Claim 38 further recites “38. A method as claimed in claim 1 further comprising: receiving, determining, or inputting, by the modeling module, inputs for determining at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier and at least one well connection transmissibility factor.” Pecher paragraph 25 last sentence disclose “seismic data and other information provided per the components 112 and 114 may be input to the simulation component 120.” Providing data as inputs is receiving, determining, or inputting inputs for the system.
Claim 38 further recites “and determining, by the modeling module, whether the well-cell is active, based on the inputs.” Pecher paragraph 57 discloses “The pressure values
P
*
of these cells or perforations, and the corresponding flow rates
Q
*
across
Γ
*
, may provide boundary conditions (BCs) for the local problem. If any of the outer cells are inactive or missing, the appropriate global boundary condition may be applied instead.” Determining if the outer cells are inactive of missing corresponds with identifying active cells which are those cells which are not inactive and not missing.
Claim 46 further recites “46. A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determining, by the modeling module, one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
), accounts, by the modeling module for a skin factor (S) which is incorporated by the equation,
r
-
w
=
r
w
e
-
S
.” Pecher paragraph 88 disclose “well skin factor, s, may be an auxiliary reservoir engineering (RE) concept which extends existing well-to-cell coupling equations.”
Claim 47 recites “47. A computer system having a processor and non-transitory memory that stores data including instructions to be executed by the processor, the processor configured to carry out a free-space well connection method of determining parameters for modeling a reservoir by executing a modeling module stored in the memory (120).” Pecher paragraph 139 discloses “computer system 501A” and “one or more processors 504, which is (or are) connected to one or more storage media 506.” Pecher paragraph 141 disclose “Storage media 506 may include one or more different forms of memory including semiconductor memory devices such as ….”
Pecher abstract discloses “determining one or more parameters of the one or more wells based at least in part on the fluid flow.” Pecher title discloses “SIMULATING A HYDROCARBON FIELD USING A MULTI-POINT WELL CONNECTION METHOD.” Simulating a hydrocarbon field corresponds with modeling a reservoir. The multi-point well connection method is a well connection method.
Claim 47 further recites “the modeling module having data representing a grid with a well-cell and at least one link-cell, each of the at least one link-cell having a common face (
Γ
i
) with the well-cell, the well-cell and the at least one link-cell being a local cell array.” Pecher paragraph 110 disclose “In 306, the field may be divided into grid cells.” Pecher paragraph 49 discloses “Consider a well that may be located exactly between two adjacent grid cells with identical shapes and rock properties.” Grid cells correspond with at least a represented grid with cells.
Pecher paragraph 49 disclose “The cell containing the well, ‘well cell’, may communicate with it directly via Eq. 1, while the other cell may be affected by the well indirectly via inter-cell flow across the shared face.” The well cell is a well-cell. The shared face corresponds with a common face.
Claim 47 further recites “the modeling module configured to: model the local cell array as having an infinite outer boundary by modeling the grid as an infinite space around the local cell array for determination of parameters for the well-cell.” Pecher paragraph 130 discloses “in accordance with various (inner and outer) asymmetries.” Pecher paragraph 57 teaches a boundary integral formulation disclosing “Let the domain of the well cell
i
=
0
be denoted as
Ω
and its entire boundary
Γ
=
δ
Ω
be composed of n faces
Γ
i
adjoining the outer FVM cells
i
>
0
to cell 0, plus m points/curves/surfaces
Γ
w
representing the well perforations.”
But Pecher does not explicitly disclose the local cell array having an infinite outer boundary as an infinite space around the local cell array; however, in analogous art of reservoir simulation, Dogru column 40 lines 47-50 teach “As is known and understood by those skilled in the art, a field-scale simulation model can include, for example, models that span an entire section of an infinity reservoir.” An infinity reservoir is an infinite space around the local cell array.
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 Pecher and Dogru. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use field-scale simulation model of an infinity reservoir into the system of simulating a hydrocarbon field for the advantageous purpose of defining a 3D equivalent well block radius under steady state conditions. See Dogru column 39 lines 47-48 and column 50 lines 45-59.
Claim 47 further recites “and determine one or more of a well connection transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
).” Pecher paragraph 66 disclose:
The volumetric rate of fluid flow from cell 0 into cell i, across their shared face
Γ
i
, may be a function of their pressure difference, inter-cell transmissibility
T
i
, and fluid mobility
M
i
.
…
[equation (9)]
The inter-cell transmissibility corresponds with a well connection transmissibility factor. The fluid mobility corresponds with an inter-cell transmissibility multiplier.
Claim 47 further recites “split the common face (
Γ
i
) into more than one boundary element of a plurality of boundary elements.” Pecher paragraph 49 disclose “The cell containing the well, ‘well cell’, may communicate with it directly via Eq. 1, while the other cell may be affected by the well indirectly via inter-cell flow across the shared face.” The well cell is a well-cell. The shared face corresponds with a common face.
Pecher paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “all internal sources (specifically the well perforations) may be excluded from the domain by interpreting them as part of the boundary
Γ
.” Excluding the internal sources from the domain corresponds to splitting the internal sources of well perforations.
Pecher paragraph 77 discloses:
In practical terms, this may enable generating a well-conditioned, diagonally dominant (due to singularities in BIE) set of algebraic equations for determining any unknown boundary quantities, such as p or q. In the case of support flow, the same approach may help to find Si such that its value compensates for the error in Qi (see Eq. 9) caused by the approximate FVM description of the inter-cell flow rate.
The subscript ‘i' on the support flow Si indicates there is more than one support flow. Accordingly, there is more than one corresponding boundary element associated with the respective BIE equations.
In particular, Pecher paragraph 87 disclose “The initial step may be finding the boundary point x closest to x', splitting the boundary segment/patch around it, and if x=x', treating the integral in the Cauchy principal value sense. In some embodiments, several options may be used for a choice of the actual x' location on the local boundary (
Γ
i
or
Γ
w
).”
Claim 47 further recites “and transmit the transmissibility factor (
T
w
) and the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
M
i
) to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run, a preprocessing software or a cloud microservice.” Pecher paragraph 118 disclose “the simulated filed results may be stored by the system 100 or transmitted to other computer system. In some embodiments, for example, the simulate field results 311 may be used to plan installation of new wells, operations of existing wells, and the like.” Transmitting the simulation results to be used for to plan operations of existing wells corresponds with transmitting to a serial or parallel reservoir simulation run.
Dependent Claims 9 and 10
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecher and Dogru as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 9 further recites “9. A method as in claim 1, wherein the more than one boundary element is four boundary elements.” Pecher paragraph 49 disclose “The cell containing the well, ‘well cell’, may communicate with it directly via Eq. 1, while the other cell may be affected by the well indirectly via inter-cell flow across the shared face.” The well cell is a well-cell. The shared face corresponds with a common face.
Pecher paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “all internal sources (specifically the well perforations) may be excluded from the domain by interpreting them as part of the boundary
Γ
.” Excluding the internal sources from the domain corresponds to splitting the internal sources of well perforations.
Pecher paragraph 77 discloses:
In practical terms, this may enable generating a well-conditioned, diagonally dominant (due to singularities in BIE) set of algebraic equations for determining any unknown boundary quantities, such as p or q. In the case of support flow, the same approach may help to find Si such that its value compensates for the error in Qi (see Eq. 9) caused by the approximate FVM description of the inter-cell flow rate.
The subscript ‘i' on the support flow Si indicates there is more than one support flow. Accordingly, there is more than one corresponding boundary element associated with the respective BIE equations.
In particular, Pecher paragraph 87 “The initial step may be finding the boundary point x closest to x', splitting the boundary segment/patch around it, and if x=x', treating the integral in the Cauchy principal value sense. In some embodiments, several options may be used for a choice of the actual x' location on the local boundary (
Γ
i
or
Γ
w
).”
But Pecher does not explicitly disclose the specific amount of four boundary elements. However, a change in amount is obvious when there has been no showing that the claimed amounts are critical. See MPEP §2144.05. Here, Examiner finds Pecher’s teaching of a plurality of boundary elements teaches at least two elements. Furthermore, Examiner finds two elements is similar to four boundary elements and thus four boundary elements is obvious absent a showing that four boundary elements is a critical amount. See §2144.05(III)(A) for how to rebut this finding by showing that the specific amount is critical.
Claim 10 further recites “10. A method as in claim 1, wherein the more than one boundary element is nine boundary elements.” Pecher paragraph 49 disclose “The cell containing the well, ‘well cell’, may communicate with it directly via Eq. 1, while the other cell may be affected by the well indirectly via inter-cell flow across the shared face.” The well cell is a well-cell. The shared face corresponds with a common face.
Pecher paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “all internal sources (specifically the well perforations) may be excluded from the domain by interpreting them as part of the boundary
Γ
.” Excluding the internal sources from the domain corresponds to splitting the internal sources of well perforations.
Pecher paragraph 77 discloses:
In practical terms, this may enable generating a well-conditioned, diagonally dominant (due to singularities in BIE) set of algebraic equations for determining any unknown boundary quantities, such as p or q. In the case of support flow, the same approach may help to find Si such that its value compensates for the error in Qi (see Eq. 9) caused by the approximate FVM description of the inter-cell flow rate.
The subscript ‘i' on the support flow Si indicates there is more than one support flow. Accordingly, there is more than one corresponding boundary element associated with the respective BIE equations.
In particular, Pecher paragraph 87 “The initial step may be finding the boundary point x closest to x', splitting the boundary segment/patch around it, and if x=x', treating the integral in the Cauchy principal value sense. In some embodiments, several options may be used for a choice of the actual x' location on the local boundary (
Γ
i
or
Γ
w
).”
But Pecher does not explicitly disclose the specific amount of nine boundary elements. However, a change in amount is obvious when there has been no showing that the claimed amounts are critical. See MPEP §2144.05. Here, Examiner finds Pecher’s teaching of a plurality of boundary elements teaches at least two elements. Furthermore, Examiner finds two elements is similar to nine boundary elements and thus nine boundary elements is obvious absent a showing that nine boundary elements is a critical amount. See §2144.05(III)(A) for how to rebut this finding by showing that the specific amount is critical.
Dependent Claim 44
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecher and Dogru as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 11,112514 B2 Kayum [herein “Kayum”].
Claim 44 further recites “44. A method as in claim 1, wherein identifying of inactive cells is based on a determination, by the modeling module, that the cell has one or more of a pore volume that is below a predetermined pore volume threshold, a permeability below a predetermined permeability threshold, and a transmissibility below a predetermined transmissibility threshold.” Pecher paragraph 57 discloses “The pressure values
P
*
of these cells or perforations, and the corresponding flow rates
Q
*
across
Γ
*
, may provide boundary conditions (BCs) for the local problem. If any of the outer cells are inactive or missing, the appropriate global boundary condition may be applied instead.”
Pecher does not explicitly disclose determining a respective property value below a threshold determines a cell is inactive; however, in analogous art of reservoir simulation, Kayum column 3 lines 22-36 teaches:
to determine an optimum number subdomains for a reservoir simulation early in the simulation process based on a grid of both "active" and "inactive" cells. Active cells can be defined as cells of the grid that exhibit properties that computationally contribute to flow dynamics of the simulation, such as a cell exhibiting a porosity that can enable fluid flow. Inactive cells can be defined as cells of the grid that do not exhibit properties that computationally contribute to flow dynamics of the simulation, such as a cell exhibiting a porosity (for example, zero porosity) that does not enable fluid flow. … known properties of respective portions of the reservoir, such as pore volume, permeability, reservoir geometry and fault locations.
A cell with zero porosity corresponds to a cell below a predetermined pore volume. Kayum further teaches properties of pore volume, and permeability.
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 Pecher, Dogru, and Kayum. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use identification of active and inactive cells into the system of simulating a hydrocarbon field for the advantageous purpose of determining an optimum number of subdomains. See Kayum column 3 lines 20-24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-8, 11, 12, 26, 34, 40, and 41 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 2017/0212773 A1 Pecher [herein “Pecher”] teaches simulating a hydrocarbon field using a multi-point well connection (MPWC) method.
Pecher, R. "Breaking the Symmetry with the Multi-Point Well Connection Method" Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-173302-MS (2015) is substantially similar to Pecher discussed immediately above.
US patent 8,489,374 B2 Dogru [herein “Dogru”] teaches determining an equivalent well block radius for reservoir simulation.
Nilsen, H., et al. "Accurate Modeling of Faults by Multipoint, Mimetic, and Mixed Methods" Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 149690, pp. 568-579 (2012) [herein “Nilsen” teaches Transmissibility multipliers in a two-point discretization for modeling faults in a flow simulator.
US 2015/0338550 A1 Wadsley; Andrew teaches characterising Subsurface Reservoirs. Wadsley paragraph 172 teaches multiphase mass balance equations with transmissibility and mobility factors.
US 8,437,997 B2 Meurer; Mary Ellen et al. teaches Dynamic connectivity analysis.
US 9,494,709 B2 Dogru; Ali H. teaches Sequential fully implicit well model for reservoir simulation; Column 8 lines 60 et seq. teach volume balance equations with directional cell transmissibility factors T. Column 10 line 61 equation (19a) combines transmissibilities into a central term for transmissibility.
Regarding claim 2:
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “the at least one link-cell, as having infinitesimal thickness, by assuming the flow through the common face is the same as the flow out of the link-cell through an external face of the link-cell … across a thin layer of equivalent transmissibility (
T
0
i
,
i
)” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6-8:
Pecher paragraph 63 last sentence discloses “all internal sources (specifically the well perforations) may be excluded from the domain by interpreting them as part of the boundary
Γ
.” Excluding the internal sources from the domain corresponds to splitting the internal sources of well perforations. Pecher fails to teach a minimum distances between a well perforation and the common face.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “a minimum distance between a well perforation (
Γ
w
) in the well-cell and a point on the common face (
Γ
i
)” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-12:
Pecher fails to teach a bounding box.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “determining, by the modeling module, a bounding box for one or more of a well perforation (
Γ
w
) and a well perforation segment; and splitting, … if the bounding box size is above a predetermined threshold” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26:
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “uses a total number of boundary condition relations, the total number of boundary condition relations being three times the number of boundary elements of the local cell array plus one (
3
n
+
1
)” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34:
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “wherein a sum of values of the at least one inter-cell transmissibility multiplier (
∑
i
M
i
) is equal to a total number of link-cells in a set of active link-cells (
A
) in the local cell array” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 40:
Pecher paragraphs 79-80 use a conductivity K, but fails to disclose a hydraulic conductivity and fails to teach applying a mapping to make a hydraulic conductivity a diagonal tensor.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “if a hydraulic conductivity (K) is a non-diagonal tensor within a predetermined threshold, applying mapping, by the modeling module, to spatial coordinates, making the hydraulic conductivity (K) a diagonal tensor” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 41:
Pecher paragraphs 79-80 use a conductivity K, but fails to disclose a hydraulic conductivity and fails to teach applying a mapping to make a hydraulic conductivity a scalar only if the conductivity K is within a threshold.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “if a hydraulic conductivity (K) is not a scalar within a predetermined threshold, applying mapping, by the modeling module, to spatial coordinates, making the hydraulic conductivity (K) a scalar” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 29 January 2026