DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 7 – 8, 10 – 11, 13 – 14, 16 - 17 and 19 – 23 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 7 and 13 are currently amended. Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 are cancelled.
The instant Office Action is in response to the submission of the amendments on 04/13/2026.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(a) rejection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Here, the amended claims describe an improvement to the technology or technical field of reservoir simulation, enabling more accurate predictions of oil production when empirical data (such as wettability) are not available and in relation to empirical models …
The analytical process improves production forecast …
In an example, an improvement of at least 2-10% may be realized, which results in large volume differences in many fields …
The claimed features recite a specific improvement to solve a particular problem in reservoir simulations in circumstances in which gridblock based simulations may not be feasible because of insufficient field data and recites a process to generate the wettability data that represents an improvement in non-gridblock based simulators that rely on values of average water saturation between injectors and producers, which may cause accuracy or consistency issues” (emphasis added)
Examiner notes that limiting the claimed invention to a field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, an improvement in a “prediction” or “analytical process” or “reservoir simulations” results wholly from the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The claimed additional elements of "injecting ... obtaining ... accessing ... and performing," taken in combination with the other features of the claim as a whole, amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract metal process because the features include improvements to the functioning of a computer ( e.g., the improved non-gridblock based simulation computational performance), improvements to the technology or technical field of reservoir simulation, adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field ( e.g., use of a calculated wettability value rather than an average water saturation between injectors and producers), and are meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment because they recite a specific solution to solve a problem with a particular kind of simulator when field data are unavailable.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the additional element taken in combination include improvements to the functioning of a computer, improvements to the technology or technical field of reservoir simulation. As previously remarked, limiting the claimed invention to a field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the computer elements comprise no more than general purpose computer hardware and software, and implementing the steps of the abstract idea requires no more than generic computer functions. Regarding the reciting of other than well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and regarding the reciting of a specific solution to solve a problem with a particular kind of simulator, Applicant appear to argue substantially elements of the abstract idea (i.e. use of a calculated wettability value rather than an average water saturation between injectors and producers), which is not a persuasive argument since the novelty of the abstract idea does not transform the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Regarding the use of a specific simulator, the claims recite said use at a high-level of generality merely by “providing the wettability value to the non gridblock-based reservoir simulator” which does not recite any details regarding how the simulation itself is performed. Further, the “accessing a non gridblock-based reservoir simulator” and “performing, by providing the wettability value to the non gridblock-based simulator, the reservoir simulation” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since the nature of claimed invention steps already restricted the use of simulators to be non gridblock-based (see the instant application 40 “For the saturation oil fractional models, due to the nature of the CRM not being a gridblock-based reservoir simulator,”). Therefore, reciting “non gridblock-based reservoir simulator” does not meaningfully limit the scope of application of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues: “Independent claims 7 and 13 differ in scope relative to amended claim 1 (and each other), but each of these claims has been amended to include features similar to those discussed above with reference to amended claim 1”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive based on the preceding remarks.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection(s).
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 7 and 13, and claim 2, 4 – 5, 8, 10 – 11, 14, 16 - 17 and 19 – 23 by incorporation) method for predicting oil production from a reservoir, the method comprising: “generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Shojaei et al. “Relative permeability and capillary pressure curves for low salinity water flooding in sandstone rocks” teaches using a simulator to generate capillary pressure curves, and generating a contact angle from tests using salt water. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding.
Matringe et al. (US 2015/0337631) teaches a simulator for capacitance-resistance model. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding.
Hinkel et al. (US 2011/0108271) teaches a capillary pressure in combination with a contact angle used to determine wettability. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding.
Temizel et al. “Improving Oil-Rate Estimate in Capacitance/Resistance Modeling Using the Y-Function Method for Reservoirs Under Waterflood” teaches identifying a post-water breakthrough using a group parameter. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding.
Sayarpour, M. “Development and Application of Capacitance-Resistive Models to Water/CO2 Floods” teaches measuring average relative error and mean of square errors for a model. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding.
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 – 5 and 7 – 8, 10 - 11 and 13 – 14, 16 - 17 and 19 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for predicting oil production from a reservoir, the method comprising: determining, based on the production data, a relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, wherein the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production comprises an analytical equation
PNG
media_image1.png
37
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is a value of volumetric sweep efficiency for the hydrocarbon reservoir, PV is a value of a pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir, Bis a ratio of a relative permeability of oil to a relative permeability of water, and Qr, is a value of the cumulative liquid production in the hydrocarbon reservoir; identifying, based on the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a post-water breakthrough point; generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “identifying” and “generating” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “analytical equation” as part of the “determining … a relationship” explicitly recites a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: injecting, by a pump at an injection well for waterflooding, a displacing fluid into a hydrocarbon reservoir until after a post-water breakthrough point occurs in the reservoir; obtaining, after injecting the fluid, production data from the hydrocarbon reservoir, the production data comprising data representing a fractional oil flow; accessing a non gridblock-based reservoir simulator; and performing, by providing the wettability value to the non gridblock-based reservoir simulator, the reservoir simulation using a parameter including the wettability value. The “injecting” amounts to extra-solution activity since it amounts to improving oil production from the reservoir, from which the predictions of the future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production are generated. The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the remaining steps merely utilize the obtained data in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “accessing” and “performing, by providing” in combination amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” with regard to performing a simulation using the results of the abstract idea. Examiner notes that the “accessing” is necessarily required prior to performance of the simulation, and the “by providing” generically covers configuring the reservoir using desired parameters. The restriction of the simulator to be “non gridblock-based” does not meaningfully limit the scope of application of the claimed invention since the nature of the claimed invention steps already restrict the use of simulators to be non gridblock-based (see the instant application 40 “For the saturation oil fractional models, due to the nature of the CRM not being a gridblock-based reservoir simulator,”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “injecting” covers well-understood, routine and convention activity (see Dabbous (US 4129182) waterflooding is a common technique, and pumps are available “it may be necessary to put pumps in the wellbore to pump the fluid from the wellbore to the surface … After the primary production has been depleted, it is a common practice to institute secondary recovery operations. One of the more common secondary recovery operations is the so-called waterflooding technique, wherein water is injected into injection wells and drives oil toward a second set of wells, called producing wells”). The “obtaining” comprises well-understood, routine and conventional activity since it generic with regard to how the data is obtained which reasonably includes electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “accessing” and “performing, by providing” in combination amount to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually the “injecting” and “obtaining” are used to provide data that is need by the abstract idea steps, and the “accessing” and “performing, by providing” occur after the abstract idea steps have generated values. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 and 5 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s) and includes all the limitations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 2 wherein the production data comprises values for at least one of pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir and a volumetric sweep efficiency of the hydrocarbon reservoir; and In claim 5 drilling a well in the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the prediction of the future fractional oil flow or the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir. For example, the “production data comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “obtaining” with specific data obtained, and without changing how it is obtained. The “drilling a well” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome that is merely based on a previous prediction. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “production data comprises” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it generic with regard to how the data is obtained which reasonably includes electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “drilling a well” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 4 wherein estimating a value for a group parameter (Ev/B)*PV at a reference point of the relationship comprises determining the value for the group parameter by setting Y = fa (1 - fa) = 0, wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is a value of volumetric sweep efficiency for the hydrocarbon reservoir, PV is a value of a pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir, B is a ratio of a relative permeability of oil to a relative permeability of water. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining the value for the group parameter by setting Y = fa (1 - fa) = 0” recites the use of specific equations or models to determine values. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 19 - 23 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 19 determining a cumulative production value by total volume for liquid in the reservoir based on the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir over a period of time; In claim 20 generating, based on the value of the wettability, a predicted value of a recovery efficiency for the reservoir; In claim 21 determining a value of a contact angle for the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure; In claim 22 during operation of the injection well in the hydrocarbon reservoir and based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating an estimate of a magnitude of water channeling occurring in the hydrocarbon reservoir; and In claim 23 generating, based on different wettability values for different regions, additional predictions of future fractional oil flows and future rates of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “generating” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system for predicting oil production from a reservoir, the system comprising: determining, based on the production data, a relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, wherein the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production comprises an analytical equation
PNG
media_image1.png
37
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is a value of volumetric sweep efficiency for the hydrocarbon reservoir, PV is a value of a pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir, Bis a ratio of a relative permeability of oil to a relative permeability of water, and Qr, is a value of the cumulative liquid production in the hydrocarbon reservoir; identifying, based on the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a post-water breakthrough point; generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during the waterflooding. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “identifying” and “generating” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “analytical equation” as part of the “determining … a relationship” explicitly recites a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a pump at an injection well for waterflooding, the pump configured to inject a displacing fluid into a hydrocarbon reservoir until after a post-water breakthrough point occurs in the reservoir; at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations; obtaining, after injecting the fluid and detecting the post-water breakthrough point, production data from a hydrocarbon reservoir, the production data comprising data representing a fractional oil flow; accessing a non gridblock-based reservoir simulator; and performing, by providing the wettability value to the non gridblock-based reservoir simulator, the reservoir simulation using a parameter including the wettability value. The “pump at an injection well for waterflooding” amounts to extra-solution activity since it amounts to improving oil production from the reservoir, from which the predictions of the future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production are generated. The “processor” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the remaining steps merely utilize the obtained data in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “accessing” and “performing, by providing” in combination amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” with regard to performing a simulation using the results of the abstract idea. Examiner notes that the “accessing” is necessarily required prior to performance of the simulation, and the “by providing” generically covers configuring the reservoir using desired parameters. The restriction of the simulator to be “non gridblock-based” does not meaningfully limit the scope of application of the claimed invention since the nature of the claimed invention steps already restrict the use of simulators to be non gridblock-based (see the instant application 40 “For the saturation oil fractional models, due to the nature of the CRM not being a gridblock-based reservoir simulator,”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “pump at an injection well for waterflooding” covers well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see Dabbous (US 4129182) waterflooding is a common technique, and pumps are available “it may be necessary to put pumps in the wellbore to pump the fluid from the wellbore to the surface … After the primary production has been depleted, it is a common practice to institute secondary recovery operations. One of the more common secondary recovery operations is the so-called waterflooding technique, wherein water is injected into injection wells and drives oil toward a second set of wells, called producing wells”). The recited “processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “obtaining” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it generic with regard to how the data is obtained which reasonably includes electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “accessing” and “performing, by providing” in combination amount to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually the “pump at an injection well for waterflooding” and “obtaining” are used to provide data that is need by the abstract idea steps, and the “accessing” and “performing, by providing” occur after the abstract idea steps have generated values. Further, the “pump at an injection well for waterflooding” requires no more than generic equipment, and the “obtaining” and “accessing” and “performing, by providing” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 and 11 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s) and includes all the limitations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 8 wherein the production data comprises values for at least one of pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir and a volumetric sweep efficiency of the hydrocarbon reservoir; and In claim 11 drilling a well in the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the prediction of the future fractional oil flow or the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir. For example, the “production data comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “obtaining” with specific data obtained, and without changing how it is obtained. The “drilling a well” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome that is merely based on a previous prediction. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “production data comprises” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it generic with regard to how the data is obtained which reasonably includes electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “drilling a well” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 10 wherein estimating a value for a group parameter (Ev/B)*PV at a reference point of the relationship comprises determining the value for the group parameter by setting Y = fa (1 - fa) = 0, wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is a value of volumetric sweep efficiency for the hydrocarbon reservoir, PV is a value of a pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir, B is a ratio of a relative permeability of oil to a relative permeability of water. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining the value for the group parameter by setting Y = fa (1 - fa) = 0” recite the use of specific equations or models to determine values. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) one or more non-transitory computer readable media to perform operations comprising: determining, based on the production data, a relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, wherein the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production comprises an analytical equation
PNG
media_image1.png
37
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is a value of volumetric sweep efficiency for the hydrocarbon reservoir, PV is a value of a pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir, Bis a ratio of a relative permeability of oil to a relative permeability of water, and Qr, is a value of the cumulative liquid production in the hydrocarbon reservoir; identifying, based on the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a post-water breakthrough point; generating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; generating, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value representing capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating a value of a contact angle in the reservoir based on the value of the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a cross sectional area of the reservoir, an oil volume value, a time value, a saturation value, and a value for water viscosity; generating, from the value of the contact angle, a wettability value for the reservoir; based on the value of the group parameter and the wettability value for the reservoir, generating, for a reservoir simulation, a prediction of a future fractional oil flow and a future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir during waterflooding. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “identifying” and “generating” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “analytical equation” as part of the “determining … a relationship” explicitly recites a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: storing instructions for predicting oil production from a reservoir, the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, configured to cause the at least one processor to perform operations; obtaining, based on injection of a displacing fluid into a hydrocarbon reservoir until after a post-water breakthrough point occurs in the reservoir, production data from a hydrocarbon reservoir, the production data comprising data representing a fractional oil flow; accessing a non gridblock-based reservoir simulator; and performing, by providing the wettability value to the non gridblock-based reservoir simulator, the reservoir simulation using a parameter including the wettability value. The ”instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “obtaining” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the remaining steps merely utilize the obtained data in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “accessing” and “performing, by providing” in combination amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” with regard to performing a simulation using the results of the abstract idea. Examiner notes that the “accessing” is necessarily required prior to performance of the simulation, and the “by providing” generically covers configuring the reservoir using desired parameters. The restriction of the simulator to be “non gridblock-based” does not meaningfully limit the scope of application of the claimed invention since the nature of the claimed invention steps already restrict the use of simulators to be non gridblock-based (see the instant application 40 “For the saturation oil fractional models, due to the nature of the CRM not being a gridblock-based reservoir simulator,”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “instructions” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “obtaining” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it generic with regard to how the data is obtained which reasonably includes electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “accessing” and “performing, by providing” in combination amount to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually the “obtaining” is used to provide data that is need by the abstract idea steps, and the “accessing” and “performing, by providing” occur after the abstract idea steps have generated values. Further, the “obtaining” and “accessing” and “performing, by providing” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 and 17 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s) and includes all the limitations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 14 wherein the production data comprises values for at least one of pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir and a volumetric sweep efficiency of the hydrocarbon reservoir; and In claim 17 drilling a well in the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the prediction of the future fractional oil flow or the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir. For example, the “production data comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “obtaining” with specific data obtained, and without changing how it is obtained. The “drilling a well” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome that is merely based on a previous prediction. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “production data comprises” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it generic with regard to how the data is obtained which reasonably includes electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “drilling a well” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 16 wherein estimating a value for a group parameter (Ev/B)*PV at a reference point of the relationship comprises determining the value for the group parameter by setting Y = fa (1 - fa) = 0, wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is a value of volumetric sweep efficiency for the hydrocarbon reservoir, PV is a value of a pore volume of the hydrocarbon reservoir, B is a ratio of a relative permeability of oil to a relative permeability of water. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining the value for the group parameter by setting Y = fa (1 - fa) = 0” recite the use of specific equations or models to determine values. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
