Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 12/01/2025.
2. Claim rejection of Claims 1-20 under USC 1129b) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 12/01/2025.
USC 101 argument answer
3. Applicant’s argument regarding USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is specifically integrated into a practical application because it recites specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result. In this manner, claims include automatic adjustment of drilling
parameters, which along with the other steps in the claim, is used for achieving an improved
technological result. However, examiner notes that the claim language do not mention the term ‘automatic’ anywhere in the claim. Furthermore, even it did, still it is a generic broad recitation of the claimed inventive concept, because adjusting drilling parameters using optimized variogram range is a mathematical calculation that could be done mentally or using simple pen and paper. Without any details about how the adjusting is being performed and how it is integrated into a practical application, all the claimed elements in the amended claims are represents some mathematical entities/calculations that could be performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is maintained in the current office action.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations:
“defining a three-dimensional volume of a subterranean zone using well log data”;
“selecting from a set of variogram models, a variogram model fitting a set of wells in parallel direction, normal, and vertical direction within the three-dimensional volume of the subterranean zone for continuous log porosity”;
“estimating, using the variogram model, a distribution of geological properties of a subset of wells of the set of wells at unsampled locations”;
“determining, by using the variogram model, for the subset of wells, multiple realizations to determine predicted porosities”;
“determining correlations between actual porosities and predicted porosities for the subset of wells”;
“determining by using the correlations for the subset of wells an optimized variogram range”; and
“adjusting, by using the optimized variogram range, drilling parameters within the three-dimensional volume of the subterranean zone”.
-all of which are the manipulation of numerical data to obtain other/modified numerical data. This could be performed purely as a mental act and/or using simple pen and paper. Said limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system”, “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors” in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system”, “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 only recite “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system”, “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the programming instructions instructing the one or more processors” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the performing, selecting, executing, generating and determining steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to selecting the set of wells by determining suitable wells on which to analyze variograms model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed to determining suitable wells includes selecting only vertical wells not having horizontal sections, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to wherein the subset of the set of wells is a set of blind test wells, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to generating a scatterplot for display in a user interface, wherein the scatterplot includes points for the multiple realizations and points for the subset of the wells plotted relative to a parallel direction and a normal direction, which is basically displaying of the data output and is considered an insignificant extra solution activity [See MPEP 2106.05]. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to overlaying, onto the scatterplot, shaded ribbons identifying optimized uncertainty ranges of the parallel direction and the normal direction, which is related to the displaying of the data output and is considered an insignificant extra solution activity [See MPEP 2106.05]. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 are directed to conducting tests and experiments using a series of design of experiments (DoE) scenarios per variogram range definition, including executing 2-level DoE to validate uncertainty envelopes and executing 3-level DoE to refine intra-envelope parameter uncertainty samplings, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
As best understood by Examiner, the summary of applicant’s argument is: Ketteb, Azevedo, and Caers do not teach adjusting, by using the optimized variogram range, drilling parameters within the three-dimensional volume of the subterranean zone.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument.
Examiner notes that the amended claim limitations are very broad in scope and the combinations of Ketteb, Azevedo, and Caers teaches each and every limitation of the claim including the one in the argument. Regarding the limitation in the argument, the claim do not elaborate how the drilling parameters are being adjusted based on the optimized variogram range and what is being adjusted and without these elaborations, the term ‘adjusted’ can be given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Now turning to the prior art of record, the secondary art Azevdeo in page 21 lines 1-6, Table 2 and Figure 5 recites optimized variogram range that was used to perform 500 PSO iterations (Figure 5) in order to ensure the convergence of the adaptive sampling in each parameter-which can be construed as adjusting the drilling parameters in the 3D model of the volume of the subterranean zone. Therefore, the combinations of prior arts clearly and explicitly teach each and every limitation of the independent claim including the one in the argument. Considering the above rebuttal, the prior art rejection is maintained in the current office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ketteb et al. hereafter Ketteb (Modeling of porosity by geostatistical methods, Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2019) 12: 268-IDS document), in view of Azevedo et al. hereafter Azevedo (Multi-scale Uncertainty Quantification in Geostatistical Seismic Inversion, ARXIV, 2018, pp 1-41-IDS document).
Regarding Claim 1, Ketteb disclose a computer-implemented method, comprising:
defining a three-dimensional volume of a subterranean zone using well log data (Ketteb: Page 5, col. 1 , lines 20 - 37: a 3D structural grid is built from the horizons and faults available around the area of interest. This framework will hold all the available data including impedance and porosity logs and the 3D impedance model);
selecting from a set of variogram models, a variogram model fitting a set of wells in parallel direction, normal, and vertical direction within the three-dimensional volume of the
subterranean zone for continuous log porosity (Ketteb: Page 5, col. 1 , lines 20 - 37: "First, a 3D structural grid is built from the horizons and faults available around the area of interest. This framework will hold all the available data including impedance and porosity logs and the 3D impedance model. It is, therefore, the container for all the simulation process. It is very important to notice that the vertical sampling of this grid must be equal to the seismic sample rate, to be able to hold all the seismic samples without any losses. The porosity and impedance logs may need to be downsampled to fit the grid cells size. The log upscaling is very sensible operation and should be handled with care to not disturb the data integrity. Abaqus averaging method is highly recommended for impedance upscaling. Secondly, at the well locations, the statistical parameters are defined; this includes the porosity PDF law of porosity and the likelihood function between porosity and impedance by referring to Eqs. (6) and (8). The variogram characterizing the porosity distribution is also calculated from the lateral sampling of the porosity logs."
Page 10, col. 1, lines 7 - 14: "The horizontal ranges are evaluated from the seismic attribute data, in particular, the acoustic impedance. The variograms are calculated. and presented in Fig. 9. for all the different interfaces of the Tensleep model following different directions (azimuths). The variogram seal points are used to define the minor and major ranges and therefore the variogram ellipse. Vertical ranges are estimated directly from the scaled logs, particularly the assessed porosity log.”);
estimating, using the variogram model, a distribution of geological properties of a subset of wells of the set of wells at unsampled locations (Ketteb: Page 3, col. 1, lines 7 - 13: "[Sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS)] It uses one of the kriging variants to simulate a physical property over a block of desired positions. The SGS goes randomly through the positions and simulate by kriging the unknown value by considering the conditioning data around.”);
determining, by using the variogram model, for the subset of wells, multiple realizations to determine predicted porosities (Ketteb: Page 5, lines 38 - 40: "At the third step, the porosity logs are kriged using the SGS to come out with a desired number of realizations. Each realization is a possible true simulation of the porosity.'');
determining correlations between actual porosities and predicted porosities for the subset of wells (Ketteb: Page 5, lines 14 - 18: "The QC of the final models is done by taking a blind well test, where the data related to this well is not used in any of the above steps. A correlation between the real and simulated porosity will define the method prediction ability and may prove the process performance."),
Ketteb do not explicitly disclose:
determining by using the correlations for the subset of wells an optimized variogram range; and
adjusting, by using the optimized variogram range, drilling parameters within the three-dimensional volume of the subterranean zone.
Azevedo disclose:
determining by using the correlations for the subset of wells an optimized variogram range (Azevedo: Page 20, lines 8 - 13: "The large-scale geological uncertainty was inferred by varying simultaneously the horizontal and vertical ranges of the variogram model used as part of the stochastic sequential simulation and co-simulation, and the global target probability distribution used as the control parameter in the sequential simulation."; Azevedo: Page 26, lines 4 - 7: "In this specific case, three different facies (i.e., Gaussian mixtures) were selected to approximate the observed Ip distribution and the spatial continuity pattern of Ip was inferred by optimizing the horizontal and vertical ranges of a single variogram model (Table 3)."); and
adjusting, by using the optimized variogram range, drilling parameters within the three-dimensional volume of the subterranean zone (Azevedo: page 21, lines 1 - 4: "At each iteration, five Ip models were generated using the inferred large-scale geological parameter values. A long run of 500 PSO iterations (Figure 5) was performed in order to ensure the convergence of the adaptive sampling in each parameter, as it homes into the intervals of low misfit, with the misfit as defined in Equation 2.”; Azevedo: Page 21, lines 4 - 6: "After the first 200 iterations the misfit decreases and the procedure can be considered converged. The remaining iterations generated consistently Ip models with low misfit (Figure 5).").
Ketteb and Azevedo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to Geostatistical modeling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above geostatistical porosity modeling technique, as taught by Ketteb, and incorporating the use of uncertainty assessment technique, as taught by Azevedo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to separately account for geological uncertainty at large-scale (meta-parameters) and local scale (trace-by-trace inversion), as suggested by Azevedo (Azevedo: abstract).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting a number of a type of wells to form the subset of wells (Ketteb: page 2 column 1 & 2; Examiner’s Remark (ER): Selecting suitable wells for analysis is a common procedure in geophysics surveys).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 2 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subset of wells is a set of blind test wells (Ketteb: page 5, lines 14 - 18: "The QC of the final models is done by taking a blind well test, where the data related to this well is not used in any of the above steps. A correlation between the real and simulated porosity will define the method prediction ability and may prove the process performance.").
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 4 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a scatterplot for display in a user interface, wherein the scatterplot comprises realization points and points for the subset of the wells plotted relative to the parallel direction and the normal direction (Ketteb: Figures 6, 9-10, 12-15: pages 5-12).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 5 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising:
overlaying, onto the scatterplot, shaded ribbons identifying optimized uncertainty ranges of the parallel direction and the normal direction (Ketteb: Figures 6, 9-10, 12-15: pages 5-12).
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 6 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
conducting tests and experiments using a series of design of experiments (DoE) scenarios
per variogram range definition, including executing 2-level DoE to validate uncertainty envelopes and executing 3-level DoE to refine intra-envelope parameter uncertainty samplings (Azevedo: Page 13, lines 11 - 12: "highly similar synthetic and real seismic reflection data (i.e., a correlation coefficient close to 1) receive a misfit score (M) close to zero." and
page 21, lines 1 - 4: "At each iteration, five Ip models were generated using the inferred large-scale geological parameter values. A long run of 500 PSO iterations (Figure 5) was performed in order to ensure the convergence of the adaptive sampling in each parameter, as it homes into the intervals of low misfit, with the misfit as defined in Equation 2.”;
Examiner’s Remark (ER): Azevedo describes a number of iterations modifying the parameters of the analysis in several ways. Each combination of modification of parameters can be interpreted as a multilevel design of the analysis procedure).
Motivation to combine Ketteb and Azevedo is same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 7 and is rejected using the same teachings.
7. Claims 3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ketteb et al. hereafter Ketteb (Modeling of porosity by geostatistical methods, Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2019) 12: 268-IDS document), in view of Azevedo et al. hereafter Azevedo (Multi-scale Uncertainty Quantification in Geostatistical Seismic Inversion, ARXIV, 2018, pp 1-41-IDS document), further in view of Caers et al. hereafter Caers (Geostatistical Quantification of Geological Information for a Fluvial-Type North Sear Reservoir, SPE, 2000, pp 457-467-IDS document).
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo do not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the subset of wells comprises selecting only vertical wells excluding horizontal sections.
Caers disclose:
wherein determining the subset of wells comprises selecting only vertical wells excluding horizontal sections (Caers: page 458, col. 1, lines 10 -11).
Ketteb, Azevedo and Caers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. All of them relate to Geostatistical modeling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above geostatistical modeling technique, as taught by the combinations of Ketteb and Azevedo, and incorporating the use of vertical wells, as taught by Caers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to generate a ‘‘true’’ reference reservoir using object-based simulation that depicts the complex intertwining of fluvial channels, as suggested by Caers (Caers: Summary).
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 3 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Examination Considerations
8. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers (or paragraphs) in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific imitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
9. The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. "Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105455, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d, 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)" (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, I 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
10. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to prior art to assist the applicant to better understand the nature of the prior art, application of such prior art and, as appropriate, to further indicate other prior art that maybe applied in other office actions. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution. However, and unless otherwise stated, the Examiner's Notes are not prior art but a link to prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would find inherently appropriate.
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
12. 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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187