DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 11 and 13 - 17 and 19 – 23 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 7 and 13 are currently amended. Claims 6, 12 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 22 - 23 are new.
Response to Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(a) and (b) rejections. Therefore, they are withdrawn. However, a new 112(a) rejection is included which is necessitated by the amendments (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112).
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: “Amended claim I recites … [claim language] … These steps reflect the improvement described in the specification. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.”
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application since it reflects the disclosed technological improvement. Examiner notes that an abstract idea cannot be a practical application of itself. Therefore, to the extent that the improvement is part of the abstract idea, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The additional elements shown in the claim amendments, when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of the technical field of reservoir simulation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a). The reservoir simulator reduces both an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir (relative to conventional methods) without requiring a detailed geological description or performing relatively lengthy history matching process …
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 …
All of the dependent claims are patentable for at least similar reasons as those for the claims on which they depend are patentable” (emphasis added)
Applicant appears to argue that the additional elements amount to an improved reservoir simulator (or “simulation” as recited). Examiner notes that simulating the reservoir is not positively recited. Further, the reservoir simulation merely uses the results of the abstract idea in combination with another mathematical model, and does not require complex techniques such as 3D finite difference models which would preclude performance in the mind (see the instant application Paragraph 2 “CRM is efficient relative to 3D finite difference models, which rely on a relatively detailed geological description and a relatively lengthy history matching process that at times is difficult to obtain”, and Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
156
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 11, 13 – 17 and 19 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly claim 7 and 13), it recites “wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM)” which explicitly recites that an average error and average variance are “each reduced for the reservoir simulation”. Therefore, both quantities are required to be reduced for the same prediction/simulation under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Looking to the disclosure, it is not explicitly disclosed that both the average variance and average error are reduced since it is merely disclosed that one of the quantities is reduced (see Table 1 and Paragraph 82 the average variance is reduced
PNG
media_image2.png
239
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and Table 3 the average error is reduced
PNG
media_image3.png
94
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
). Examiner notes that Table 3 does not have any further detailed explanation in the disclosure, nor does it show any parameters used for the EPLFFM model in the table itself. Therefore, it is unclear why the predictions in Table 3 are different from those in Table 2.
With regard to claims 2 – 5 and 8 – 11 and 14 – 17 and 19 – 23, they are rejected by virtue of their dependency from a rejected parent claim, and since they do not recite any further limitations to overcome the parent claim deficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 and 112 rejections.
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 – 5 and 8 – 11 and 14 – 17 and 19 – 23 by incorporation) method for predicting oil production from a reservoir, the method comprising: “wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM)”, 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.
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: wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM).
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: wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM).
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: wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM).
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 – 5 and 7 – 11 and 13 - 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; identifying, based on the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a post-water breakthrough point; estimating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; determining, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value of capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating, based on the value the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a wettability value for the reservoir; and 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, wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM). At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “identifying” and “estimating” and “generating” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. 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. 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 “detecting” and “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 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 and “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”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the all comprise extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional. 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 3 – 4 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 3 wherein the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production comprises an analytical equation Y = fa (1 - fa) = (Ev/B * PV) ) (1/QL), wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is B QL 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, and QL is a value of the cumulative liquid production in the hydrocarbon reservoir; 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 “analytical equation” and “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.
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; identifying, based on the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, the post-water breakthrough point; estimating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; determining, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value of capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating, based on the value the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a wettability value for the reservoir; and 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, wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM). At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “identifying” and “estimating” and “generating … a prediction” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. 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. 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 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”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional, and since they require 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 9 – 10 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 9 wherein the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production comprises an analytical equation Y = fa (1 - fa) = (Ev/B * PV) ) (1/QL), wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is B QL 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, and QL is a value of the cumulative liquid production in the hydrocarbon reservoir; 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 “analytical equation” and “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; identifying, based on the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, the post-water breakthrough point; estimating a value for a group parameter at a reference point of the relationship occurring after the post-water breakthrough point; determining, based on the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production, a value of capillary pressure in the reservoir; generating, based on the value the capillary pressure in the reservoir, a wettability value for the reservoir; and based on the value of the group parameter, 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, wherein an average error and an average variance of the prediction of the future fractional oil flow and the future rate of production of oil from the hydrocarbon reservoir are each reduced for the reservoir simulation relative to reservoir simulations based on an empirical power law oil fractional flow model (EPLFFM). At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “identifying” and “estimating” and “generating … a prediction” require no more than observations and judgements which can be performed mentally in combination with a piece of paper. 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 (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). 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 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”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional, and since they require 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 15 – 16 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 15 wherein the relationship between the fractional oil flow and cumulative liquid production comprises an analytical equation Y = fa (1 - fa) = (Ev/B * PV) ) (1/QL), wherein Y is the relationship, fo is the fractional oil flow, Ev is B QL 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, and QL is a value of the cumulative liquid production in the hydrocarbon reservoir; 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 “analytical equation” and “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
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