CTFR 17/900,396 CTFR 101483 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Responsive to communications on 03/31/2026 Claims 7, and 15 original Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 amended Claims 1-20 Pending Claims 1-20 rejected Claim 16 objected to Final Action 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Begin Response to Applicant Arguments Response to Objections Drawings were previously objected to failing to include reference character 610. As well as failing to clarify a par 44: “a modeling stage diagram 800 for predicting stress changes due to drilling rock fragmentation” in figure 8. Applicant has corrected to specification to amended the drawing objections. Examiner notes that specification has been corrected to correct labeling of reference character 610. Examiner notes that drawings for figure 8 has not been corrected, and there have been no arguments regarding the objection to figure 8. Therefore the Objection to the drawings is maintained by the examiner. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 were previously objected to. Claims 5 and 13 was objected to due to an extra parenthesis in the claim. Claims 4, 12, and 20 were objected to for informalities as well. Responsive to the amended claim set received on 03/31/2026. Examiner confirms that the claim objects were corrected and the previous claim objection is withdrawn by the examiner . Response to Applicant Arguments 35 USC § 112 Claims 3, 11, and 19 were objected to for not meaningfully limiting claims 1, 9, and 17. Applicant has amended claims 3, 11, and 19 as well as claims 1, 9, and 17. Examiner confirms that claims 3, 11, and 19 are now different in scope and the rejection is withdrawn. Response to Applicant Arguments 35 USC § 101 Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 17, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant has amended claims independent claims 1, 9, and 17 to overcome the 101 rejection. Issue: Applicant argues claims 1, 9, and 17 are not abstract because they recite specific and unconventional steps for achieving an improved technological result. The amended claims recite a specific technique in which treatment is used, specifically the new amended portion of “controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling …. Fracturing,” which as the applicant argues, achieves an improved technological result. Rule: The MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.” The MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” The MPEP 2106.06(a)(II) states “The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea” Analysis: The consideration of an “improved technological result” as cited by the applicant refers to an additional element which may potentially integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A prong 2. The applicant argues that the additional element of “of “controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling …. Fracturing,” provides an improvement to a technology which is considered in MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant argues that the claim recites a specific way for achieving the improved technological result. Examiner disagrees, the claim does not set forwards particular rules, or describe a specific way the judicial exception is applied as outlined in the McRO court. For example, the claim does not provide a basis for making the decision for “controlling a drilling equipment…” (eg: if the required breakdown pressure is >1000 then use conventional drilling). The claim states, “controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling …. Fracturing,” this is an outcome, which is to drill a well. Furthermore, the consideration of “unconventional” occurs in step 2B of 101 analysis. The claim states “controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling …. Fracturing,” the examiner notes that this claim does not actually require the use of the determination earlier, and encompasses performing conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, the additional elements in the claim encompass performing conventional hydraulic fracturing which is conventional in the art. Conclusion: The examiner maintains the rejection in light of the amendments. Issue: Applicant argues claims 1, 9, and 17 are not abstract because they recite various improvements to oil-drilling operation technology . Applicant argues that even if the claims recite a judicial exception, that the claim further recites a combination of limitations that integrates the judicial exception into a practical idea. Applicant cites: ‘“an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception" (2019 PEG, p. 19-20). Additionally, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2): "Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim,"’ Applicant argues that the amended limitation of “controlling a drilling equipment … fracturing” constitutes a specific improvement for enhancing safety operations of oil production at target pressures. Rule: MPEP 2106.05(b)(III) states “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” The MPEP 2106.05(f) states “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" . The MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” The MPEP 2106.06(a)(II) states “The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea” Analysis: Applicant begins by correctly identifying that the additional claim limitation introduced quantifies as an additional element outside of the judicial exception (drilling the well). Firstly, regarding the citation from the 2019 PEG, the additional element must be demonstrated to apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The examiner notes that the additional elements present in the claim do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The additional element of “drilling…” does not require the use of the judicial exception. Regarding the cited rule of “a particular machine” the examiner notes that the claim does not use the judicial exception with a particular machine. There is not particular machine present in the claim except an implied computer and generic “drilling equipment.” In regards to the argument that the amended claim “constitutes a specific improvement for enhancing safety operations of oil production at target pressure,” please see arguments above which discuss improvement to a technological field which apply to this argument. Conclusion: The examiner maintains the rejection in light of the amendments. Response to Applicant Arguments 35 USC § 103 Issue: Applicant argues that references used to not recite the amended portions of “and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock … typing.” Analysis and Conclusion: Since this is a new limitation from an amendment, new claim mappings may be introduced to reject the claim. Please see the 103 rejections. Rejection is maintained by the examiner. End Response to Applicant Arguments Drawings Responsive to drawings received on 08/31/2022 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show par 44: “FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a modeling stage diagram 800 for predicting stress changes due to drilling rock fragmentation, according to some implementations of the present disclosure.” as described in the specification. FIG. 8 Drawing does not clarify the process as outlined. 06-22-06 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner objects to claim 16. MPEP section 205 states “The applicant shall, in the letter referred to in Rule 46.5(b) or Rule 66.8(c) , indicate the differences between the claims as filed and the claims as amended or, as the case may be, differences between the claims as previously amended and currently amended .” It is noted that claim 16 is labeled as (original) despite being an amended claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 3, 9, 11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 Step 1 : Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? : YES. The claim recites A computer-implemented method, comprising: which is a process. Step 2A Prong 1 , inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ?": YES. determining, using planned well trajectories, formation tops, and well logs from past- drilled wells, estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells; The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) defines the abstract idea of a mental process as “concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The action of this claim as understood by the examiner is “determining an estimate using data (an evaluation).” The claim does not mention how this estimate is determined, only that it is determined. Therefore, this determining an estimate step is recited at a high level of generality. This step at this level of generality can reasonably be performed in the human mind. For example, an individual reasonably skilled in the art can read a report based on the well log, planned trajectory, and formation tops (an observation), and give an estimate (an evaluation) of a geomechanical properties (i.e.: “the rocks are very stiff and brittle”). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states that “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,” is a mental process. Because this claim recites collecting information (well trajectories etc.), analyzing it (determining … estimates), and displaying certain results of collection and analysis (geomechanical properties), at a high level of generality, this claim limitation is a mental process. performing, using the planned well trajectories, the formation tops, and the well logs for the past-drilled wells, image log processing for the past-drilled wells, including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation; The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) defines the abstract idea of a mental process as “concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The action of this claim as understood by the examiner is “performing image log processing.” The claim does not mention how the image log is processed, only that it is processed. Therefore, this performance of processing is recited at a high level of generality. This step at this level of generality can reasonably be performed in the human mind. For example, from the examiners understanding, an individual reasonably skilled in the art can read an image log (an observation), and process the log, (an evaluation) which may include orientations and the like. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states that “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,” is a mental process. Because this claim recites collecting information (an image log), analyzing it (processing the log), and displaying certain results of collection and analysis (orientations etc.), at a high level of generality, this claim limitation is a mental process. performing, using the estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells , three-dimensional (3D) property modeling; The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “A claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” The examiner interprets this claim as, using estimates of geomechanical properties (values) , dimensional (3D) property modeling (plot those values in three-dimensions according to their mathematic relationships). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers.“ This claim is directed to a mathematical relationship between variables (geomechanical properties). Therefore this claim is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. performing, based at least on the image log processing, natural fracture prediction (NFP) for a domain covering the past-drilled wells; The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) defines the abstract idea of a mental process as “concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The action of this claim as understood by the examiner is “performing based on image log processing (data) natural fracture prediction.” The claim does not mention how the fractures are predicted, only that they are predicted. Therefore, this performance of a prediction is recited at a high level of generality. This step at this level of generality can reasonably be performed in the human mind. For example, from the examiners understanding, an individual reasonably skilled in the art can receive data about a log (an observation which was the result of image log processing) and make a prediction of where natural fractions occur (a judgement). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states that “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,” is a mental process. Because this claim recites collecting information (results of image log processing), analyzing it (predicting fractures based on the results), and displaying certain results of collection and analysis (the location of fractures), at a high level of generality, this claim limitation is a mental process. generating, using the 3D property modeling and the NFP, a 3D geomechanics model, wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis; The broadest reasonable interpretation of a 3D geomechanics model in light of the claim language is a model that includes both 3D property modeling and NFP. Generating a 3D geomechanics model, is interpreted by the examiner as, construing an intangible model that includes both the 3D property modeling (mathematic concept) and NFP (a mental process). Therefore, this claim is directed to an abstract idea. determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) defines the abstract idea of a mental process as “concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The action of this claim as understood by the examiner is “determining breakdown pressure using a model (an observation of a model and evaluating the model to get a value).” The claim does not mention how the pressure is determined, only that it is determined. Therefore, this determination is recited at a high level of generality. This step at this level of generality can reasonably be performed in the human mind. For example, from the examiners understanding, an individual reasonably skilled in the art can receive information from a model (an observation) and use it to get a required breakdown pressure value (an evaluation). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states that “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,” is a mental process. Because this claim recites collecting information (information from the 3D geomechanics model), analyzing it (using the information to get required breakdown pressure), and displaying certain results of collection and analysis (the pressure), at a high level of generality, this claim limitation is a mental process. determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) defines the abstract idea of a mental process as “concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” This limitation is essentially, using data (required breakdown pressure) make a choice (underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used). This is a judgement, which is a mental process. Step 2A Prong 2 , Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO . A computer-implemented method, comprising: The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. determining ,using planned well trajectories, formation tops, and well logs from past- drilled wells, estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells; The MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “Mere Data Gathering” is insignificant extra-solution activity, with an example being “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display,” This limitation can be understood as selecting information, based on types of information (planned well trajectories, formation tops, and well logs from past-drilled wells) for collection, analysis and display. Therefore, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. performing , using the planned well trajectories, the formation tops, and the well logs for the past-drilled wells, image log processing for the past-drilled wells , including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation; As stated earlier, the MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “Mere Data Gathering” is insignificant extra-solution activity, with an example being “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display,” This limitation can be understood as selecting information, based on types and availability of information (planned well trajectories, formation tops, and well logs from past-drilled wells, as well as further including in the analysis, fracture types, orientations, intensity, and maximum horizontal stress orientations) in a well digging environment for collection, analysis and display. Therefore, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. performing, using the estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells, three-dimensional (3D) property modeling; The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ The recitation “for the past-drilled wells” simply limits the judicial exception towards the petrochemical field, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application performing, based at least on the image log processing, natural fracture prediction (NFP) for a domain covering the past-drilled wells; The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ The recitation “for the past-drilled wells” simply limits the judicial exception towards the petrochemical field, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application generating, using the 3D property modeling and the NFP, a 3D geomechanics model, wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis; The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ The recitation “for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis;” simply limits the judicial exception of the NFP towards the petrochemical field, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. “ for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well;” simply limits the judicial exception of calculating the pressure towards the petrochemical field, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; The MPEP 2106.05(h) states that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. "whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well.;” simply limits the judicial exception of making a choice based on data towards the petrochemical field, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, As stated earlier, the MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “Mere Data Gathering” is insignificant extra-solution activity, with an example being “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display,” This limitation can be understood as selecting information, based on types and availability of information (rock quality evaluation) in a well digging environment for collection, analysis and display. Therefore, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. The MPEP 2106.05(f) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’” The examiner notes, that due to the presence of the word “or,” this claim encompasses controlling a drilling equipment to drill a well utilizing a conventional drilling method. This does not apply the judicial exception, rather, the judicial exception is being applied on an unrelated computer and then a well is being drilled which does not integrate the judicial exception. The claim limitation does not actually integrate the judicial exception (making a decision of which method of drilling to use) to drilling the well to produce a result. Rather, this limitation does no more than to use a judicial exception (making a decision of which drilling to use) and then recites the term apply it (drill a well). Since this limitation also encompasses drilling with a conventional manner, it does not meaningfully limit the claim. Step 2B , does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. " determining , using planned well trajectories, formation tops, and well logs from past- drilled wells, estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells; This limitation was found to be Insignificant extra-solution activity. In order to further justify this assertion, the examiner will illustrate that the above limitations are well understood, routine, or conventional. “WELL LOGGING AND FORMATION EVALUATION” by Toby Darling (Darling_2005) Page 3 states: “In order to produce the hydrocarbons, wells are needed and a development strategy needs to be constructed. This strategy will typically be presented in a document called the field development plan (FDP), which contains a summary of current knowledge about the field and the plans for future development. Once an FDP has been approved, the drilling campaign will consist of well proposals, in which the costs, well trajectory , geological prognosis, and data-gathering requirements are specified. The petrophysicist plays a part in the preparation of the well proposal in specifying which logs need to be acquired in the various hole sections. 1.2 BASIC LOG TYPES Below is a list of the main types of logs that may be run, and why they are run.” ( Examiner note: Where this passage implies that is common to use planned well trajectory and well logs when planning well development. And that there is a plethora of commonly used well logs) page 4: “Real-time information is required for operational reasons, such as steering a well (e.g., a horizontal trajectory) in a particular formation or picking of formation tops ” … page 103: “While the preparation of synthetic seismograms to tie log-formation tops with seismic horizons is a long-established technique,” … page 107: “The depths corresponding to major changes in lithology, and hard/soft kicks, which are usually also formation tops , will have been converted from depth to time along with the AI log” ( Examiners note: These all imply that formation tops are a common consideration). Because these forms of data gathering are common, they do not substantially limit the scope of the claim beyond the judicial exception. “ performing , using the planned well trajectories, the formation tops, and the well logs for the past-drilled wells , image log processing for the past-drilled wells , including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation; “ This limitation was found to be Insignificant extra-solution activity. In order to further justify this assertion, the examiner will illustrate that the above limitations are well understood, routine, or conventional. As already stated, planned well trajectories, the formation tops, and the well logs for the past-drilled wells are well understood and routine in the art. Darling_2005 states page 73: “the ability to detect the presence and orientation of fractures is extremely important. “ … page 74: “In order to properly characterize the types and orientation of fractures, it is necessary to use imaging tools.” … “naturally occurring fractures will tend to be oriented in the direction of maximum horizontal stress in the field.” … “, it is useful to derive a fracture density ( Examiner note: intensity) curve that may be included with the other logs.” These passages imply that including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation; “ is well understood and routine in the art. Because these forms of data gathering are common, they do not substantially limit the scope of the claim beyond the judicial exception. determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; This limitation was found to be Insignificant extra-solution activity. In order to further justify this assertion, the examiner will illustrate that the above limitations are well understood, routine, or conventional. In “Geophysical Research on Rock Mass Quality Evaluation for Infrastructure Design” Hasan_2021 states in the abstract “Evaluation of rock mass quality is necessary for the proper design of engineering infrastructures.” Page 4 gives example of “geological properties, such as water content, type of rock, mineral content, degree of weathering and water saturation , porosity , permeability , clay , fractures, joints, and discontinuities” Furthermore, diagenetic rock typing seems to refer to the identification of diagenetic features in rocks. In chapter 19 “Diagenesis”, Bridge_2012 states “Diagenesis is the physical, biochemical, and chemical changes that occur within sediments after deposition, and involves processes such as compaction, cementation, dissolution, and recrystallization (Table 19.1). … It is important to understand diagenetic features in sedimentary rocks because (1) they must be distinguished from the primary sedimentary features that are used to interpret the environment of deposition; (2) diagenetic changes in mineralogy must be taken into account in provenance studies (Chapter 3); (3) they provide a record of the burial history of sediments that can be related to factors such as the original depositional environment, the deposition rate, sea-level changes, and tectonic activity; and (4) their influence on porosity and permeability is a major concern to hydrogeologists and petroleum geologists .” Where this passage implies that understanding/ considering diagenetic features in rocks is common to those working in the petroleum industry. Therefore, the above limitations are considered well routine and conventional and therefore insignificant extra solution activity. The rest of the limitations were directed to field of use limitations, as well as use of a generic computer to apply a judicial exception. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application Therefore, the extra limitations in claim 1 do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 3:The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the rock quality evaluation comprise water content, and rock quality typing As stated earlier, the MPEP 2106.05(g) states that “Mere Data Gathering” is insignificant extra-solution activity, with an example being “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display,” This limitation can be understood as selecting information, based on types and availability of information (rock quality evaluation) in a well digging environment for collection, analysis and display. Therefore, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, this information is considered well understood, routine, or conventional. In “Geophysical Research on Rock Mass Quality Evaluation for Infrastructure Design” Hasan_2021 states in the abstract “Evaluation of rock mass quality is necessary for the proper design of engineering infrastructures.” Page 4 gives example of “geological properties, such as water content , type of rock, mineral content, degree of weathering and water saturation, porosity, permeability, clay, fractures, joints, and discontinuities” Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 3 is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 9: Claim 9 contains effectively the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore contains a judicial exception. With the only difference being the preamble which will be discussed below. Step 1 : Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. The claim recites “ A non-transitory, computer-readable medium ” which is a manufactured product. Step 2A Prong 2 , Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. Claim 9 additionally recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising:” The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Step 2B , does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the extra limitations in claim 9 do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 9 is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 11: Claim 11 contains effectively the same limitations as claim 3 and therefore contains a judicial exception, with the only difference being the preamble which will be discussed below. Step 1 : Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. The claim recites “ The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, which is a manufactured product. Step 2A Prong 2 , Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. Claim 11 additionally states “ The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9” The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Step 2B , does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the extra limitations in claim 11 do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 11 is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 17: Claim 17 contains effectively the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore contains a judicial exception. With the only difference being the preamble which will be discussed below. Step 1 : Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. The claim recites “ A computer-implemented system” : which is an apparatus. Step 2A Prong 2 , Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. Claim 17 additionally recites “A computer-implemented system, comprising: 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 operations comprising:” The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Step 2B , does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the extra limitations in claim 17 do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 17 is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 19: Claim 19 contains effectively the same limitations as claim 3 and therefore contains a judicial exception. With the only difference being the preamble which will be discussed below. Step 1 : Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? YES. The claim recites “ A computer-implemented system” : which is an apparatus. Step 2A Prong 2 , Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. Claim 19 additionally recites “The computer-implemented system of claim 17,” The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Step 2B , does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. “ This limitation recites the presence of a general purpose computer. Therefore it does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the extra limitations in claim 19 do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 19 is not eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190080122 A1 (Camargo_2019), US 20210254458 A1 (Camargo_2021), US 20190318021 A1 (Hiu_2019), US 20160123117 A1 (Gu_2016) , “Coiled Tubing Drilling - Global Dynamics Inc” (GDI_2016), and “19 – Diagenesis from PART 5 - Sediment into rock: diagenesis” (Bridge_2012) Claim 1: Camargo_2019 makes obvious A computer-implemented method, comprising: ( par 11: “ Briefly, the present invention provides a new and improved method“ … par 51: “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the data processing system D includes a computer.“) determining, using planned well trajectories , formation tops, and well logs from past- drilled wells, estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells; par 26: “As shown at 102, the reservoir parameters include seismic attributes from seismic surveys as indicated at 104; rock and mechanical properties from geological model ing as indicated at 106 ( Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets rock and mechanical properties from geological modeling as an estimate of geomechanical properties for past-drilled wells); measures from structural restoration models as indicated at 108 ; rock geological characterizations as indicated at 110 obtained from formation core samples and well logs performed in the wellbores such as 32 and 34;” … See also FIG 5, where (110) WELL LOG includes “Formation integrity test (110d) and Formation Pressure (110a)” and also FIG. 1 which shows different formation layers par 20: “FIG. 2 is a much enlarged view showing a schematic three-dimensional very small segment or portion 32 of the subsurface hydrocarbon producing formation rock layer 10 of FIG. 1. “ ( Examiner note: using formation tops) performing, using the planned well trajectories, the formation tops, ( FIG.5. the borehole image analysis is based off of formation integrity test and formation pressure (110d and 110e respectively) which implies a judgement of formation tops. For example, if this formation has a pressure value, that means that formations pressure starts at some point. ) and the well logs for the past-drilled wells, image log processing for the past-drilled wells ( Camargo _2019 par 32: “The natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 is performed to quantify fracture density in the subsurface reservoir layer 10 using the geomechanics fracture controller results from step 130, and fracture characterization 172 provided from core samples and borehole well log images from a borehole image (BHI) analysis process 110 a .” , including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation; ( par 36: “Additionally, the maximum horizontal stress direction which can be detected by the Borehole Image Analysis (BHI) 110 a , and the in situ stress magnitude derived from 1D MEM process are used to predict the stress regime on the 3D MEM process described by the process 160.” … par 46: “The fracture modeling step 132 receives the results of the 1D natural fracture characterization 172, which is obtained from the borehole image resistivity analysis or acoustic image interpretation 110 a of the rock general characterizations 110 and represents the intensity fracture, aperture, fracture classification and fracture orientation along a wellbore , such as those indicated at 28 and 30.”) performing, using the estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells, ( FIG. 5: As shown, the 3D geomechanics model (160) is performed and first receives information/ estimates from the geological model (106), as well as the other properties previously discussed, aka seismic, geological, well logs (104 – 110)) three-dimensional (3D) property modeling; ( par 40: “ A 3D geomechanics model process 160 of natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 provides the measures and indications of rock mechanical properties distribution. The results of 3D geomechanics model process 160 include elastic rock properties and rock strength throughout the 3D geological grid.”) performing, based at least on the image log processing, natural fracture prediction (NFP) for a domain covering the past-drilled wells; ( Camargo _2019 par 32: “ The natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 is performed to quantify fracture density in the subsurface reservoir layer 10 using the geomechanics fracture controller results from step 130, and fracture characterization 172 provided from core samples and borehole well log images from a borehole image (BHI) analysis process 110 a . ( Examiner note: based at least on the image log processing) Step 132 also determines fracture dimensions and their properties into the discrete fracture model, as will be described. Examples of the fracture properties resulting from step 132 include fracture position, orientation, geometry, porosity, aperture, permeability, and the like ) generating, using the 3D property modeling and the NFP, a 3D geomechanics model, wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis; ( par 43: “A geomechanics fracture indicator process 162 of natural fracture model ( Examiner note: the 3D geomechanics model) prediction processing stage 132 forms indications of fractures ( Examiner note: wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model) based on selected rock mechanical properties distributed for the 3D geomechanics model ( Examiner note: using the 3D property modeling) resulting from step 160.” … Par 46: “ The fracture modeling step 132 receives the results of the 1D natural fracture characterization 172 , which is obtained from the borehole image resistivity analysis or acoustic image interpretation 110 a of the rock general characterizations 110 and represents the intensity fracture, aperture, fracture classification and fracture orientation along a wellbore, such as those indicated at 28 and 30 .” ( Examiner note: from the NFP))) determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing . ( par 11: “The well is then drilled in the subsurface geological structure to a location in the subsurface hydrocarbon reservoir based on the identified presence and extent of natural fractures in the subsurface geological structure.”) Camargo_2019 does not expressly recite determining , using planned well trajectories , formation tops, and well logs from past- drilled wells, estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells ; performing, using the planned well trajectories , the formation tops, and the well logs for the past-drilled wells, image log processing for the past-drilled wells including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation generating, using the 3D property modeling and the NFP, a 3D geomechanics model, wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis; determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered- perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. Hiu_2019 however makes obvious determining , using planned well trajectories , formation tops, and well logs from past- drilled wells, estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells ; ( par 1: “Hydrocarbon reservoir characterization activities, such as sub-surface mapping, rely on the accuracy and integrity of foundation data, such as well location, trajectory, and well logs.” Examiner note: suggests that planned well trajectories is “foundational data” and therefore should be obvious for one skilled in the art to include in analysis.) performing, using the planned well trajectories , the formation tops, and the well logs for the past-drilled wells, image log processing for the past-drilled wells including fracture types, orientations, intensity and maximum horizontal stress orientation ( par 1: “Hydrocarbon reservoir characterization activities, such as sub-surface mapping, rely on the accuracy and integrity of foundation data, such as well location, trajectory, and well logs.” Examiner note: suggests that planned well trajectories is “foundational data” and therefore should be obvious for one skilled in the art to include in analysis.) Camargo_2019 and Hui_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called petroleum engineering modeling. Camargo_2019 discusses a system of modeling using well data, while Hui_2019 focuses on data validation to be used in well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019 and Hui_2019. The rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching from the prior art which would have led to a teaching that would arrive at the claimed invention. Hui_2019 teaches par 1: “Hydrocarbon reservoir characterization activities, such as sub-surface mapping , rely on the accuracy and integrity of foundation data , such as well location, trajectory , and well logs.” In order to properly characterize the well model created by Camargo_2019, a personal ordinarily skilled in the art would have included “foundation data” such as well trajectory as taught by Hui_2019 for the benefit of ensuring the well model is properly characterized and mapped to the well to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Camargo_2019 and Hui_2019 do not explicitly recite generating, using the 3D property modeling and the NFP, a 3D geomechanics model, wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis; determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. Camargo_2021 however makes obvious generating, using the 3D property modeling and the NFP, a 3D geomechanics model, wherein the NFP is contained in the 3D geomechanics model for hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis; ( Carmago_2021 par 4: “The present invention is performed for characterizing the nature of the reservoir in a three dimensional grid cell model of the reservoir as suitable for hydrocarbon production .The present invention is performed for characterizing the nature of the reservoir as suitable for fracturing ( Examiner note: i.e.: performing a fracture stability analysis) to produce hydrocarbon fluids from the subsurface geological structure.”) determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; (par 52: “The rock physics model 122 is focused on predicting dynamic pressure wave velocity Vp and shear wave velocity Vs as accurately as possible, which is suitable for further mechanical modeling. By using the porosity and clay content from well logs, an analysis of which rock physics models are most suitable is performed.”) Examiner note: Where a rock physics model which contains porosity and clay content from well logs is interpreted as an evaluation of the quality of rock. Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, and Camargo_2021 are analogous arts to the claimed invention, because they are all from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill In the art to combine Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, and Camargo_2021. The rational for doing so would have been to apply a known technique to a known device to yield a predictable result. Camargo_2019 and Hui_2019 together make obvious generating a 3D geomechanics model. The prior art Camargo_2021 contains a known technique of hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis which also uses the base receive a three dimensional grid cell model. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the already known hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis of Camargo_2021 to the 3D geomechanics model of Camargo_2019 and Hui_2019 would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the 3D geomechanics model to perform hydraulic fracturing modeling and fracture stability analysis. Furthermore, the inclusion of the rock physics model would improve the invention by allowing an analysis for the most suitable models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, and Camargo_2021 to yield the predictable result to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, and Camargo_2021 do not explicitly recite determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. Gu_2016 however makes obvious determining, using the 3D geomechanics model, required breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well; ( FIG. 3A flowchart, teaches par 48: “create well model (3000)” and also simulate hydraulic fracturing process (3030)” where the well model as described is “At 3000, a well model is created. In one or more embodiments, the well model includes a geomechanical model of the well and surrounding geological formation. In one or more embodiments, the geomechanical model includes a three dimensional representation of the well such as the length and diameter of each section of the well . “ and par 53:“At 3025, the well model is modified to incorporate the measured or computed breakdown pressures and bridging correlations. In one or more embodiments, the well model is modified by incorporating a FIPC component model and corresponding FPM model for each to-be-created perforation cluster in the hydraulic fracturing treatment schedule .”) determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well; ( par 53:“At 3025, the well model is modified to incorporate the measured or computed breakdown pressures and bridging correlations. In one or more embodiments, the well model is modified by incorporating a FIPC component model and corresponding FPM model for each to-be-created perforation cluster in the hydraulic fracturing treatment schedule .”) Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021 and Gu_2016 are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021 and Gu_2016. The rational would have been to apply a known technique to a known device to yield a predictable result. Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, and Camargo_2021 together make obvious generating a 3D geomechanics model. The prior art Gu contains a known technique of calculating breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well using a base device of a 3D geomechanics model. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the already known technique of calculating breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well of Gu_2016 with the 3D geomechanics model of Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, and Camargo_2021 would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the 3D geomechanics model to perform the calculation for breakdown pressure for a clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for a new well Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, and Gu_2016 to yield the predictable result to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, and Gu_2016 do not explicitly recite determining, using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. GDI_2016 however, makes obvious determining , using the required breakdown pressure for the clustered-perforation hydraulic fracturing treatment for the new well and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing , whether underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing is to be used in a drilling operation of the new well (product description: “Coiled Tubing Drilling is best suited for under-balanced operations because it is a “closed-loop” system. A “closed-loop” system does not require the formation to be put in an over-balanced state at anytime during the operation and because drilling mud is not required, there is no skin or near well-bore damage caused. The CTD is designed to operate on a wide variety of E-Line and TEC line options . The system is ideal for narrow and low pressure formations but can be run in basically any formation or pressures.” Examiner note: where it was known in the art at the time of the effective filing date that coil tubing drilling is suited for underbalanced operations as well as for formations based on pressure. ) and controlling a drilling equipment to perform the drilling operation of the new well, the drilling operation comprising drilling the new well at a drilling rate with the underbalanced coiled tubing drilling or the conventional drilling with hydraulic fracturing. (product description: “Coiled Tubing Drilling is best suited for under-balanced operations because it is a “closed-loop” system. A “closed-loop” system does not require the formation to be put in an over-balanced state at anytime during the operation and because drilling mud is not required, there is no skin or near well-bore damage caused. The CTD is designed to operate on a wide variety of E-Line and TEC line options . The system is ideal for narrow and low pressure formations but can be run in basically any formation or pressures.” Examiner note: Where one normally skilled in the art understands that any drilling operation is done at a undefined “drilling rate”) Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016, and GDI_2016, are all analogous arts to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well reservoir engineering. Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, and Gu_2016 all discuss well modeling, GDI_2016 is a product description selling page for coiled tubing to be used in well reservoir engineering. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016, and GDI_2016, the rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching in the prior art. GDI_2016 states that the coiled tubing drilling system is “best suited for under-balanced operations”, as well as that its “ideal for narrow and low pressure formations.” The prior arts of Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016 in combination teach determining required breakdown pressure as shown above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the modeling of Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016 with the decision of GDI_2016 for the benefit of being ideal for low pressure formations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016 and GDI_2016 do not expressly recite and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, Bridge_2012 makes obvious and a rock quality evaluation comprising rock porosity and total clay content from diagenetic rock typing, ( Page 1: “Diagenesis is the physical, biochemical, and chemical changes that occur within sediments after deposition, and involves processes such as compaction, cementation, dissolution, and recrystallization (Table 19.1). … It is important to understand diagenetic features in sedimentary rocks because (1) they must be distinguished from the primary sedimentary features that are used to interpret the environment of deposition; (2) diagenetic changes in mineralogy must be taken into account in provenance studies (Chapter 3); (3) they provide a record of the burial history of sediments that can be related to factors such as the original depositional environment, the deposition rate, sea-level changes, and tectonic activity; and (4) their influence on porosity and permeability is a major concern to hydrogeologists and petroleum geologists .” ) Camargo_2019 and Bridge_2012 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called petroleum engineering and rock modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016, GDI_2016, and Bridge_2012. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. The combined inventions of Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016, and GDI_2016 teach a workflow which models fractures, and uses that information to decide between different types of drilling. For example, Camargo_2019 described properties which are important to the experiment, for example par 8:” based on rock properties (porosity, density, etc.) and fracture characterization along the wells.” Bridge_2012 states that diagenetic rock typing has a large influence on porosity, so much that it is a major concern for petroleum geologist. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the modeling workflows of Camargo_2019, Hui_2019, Camargo_2021, Gu_2016,and GDI_2016 which consider rock quality evaluations including porosity with diagenetic rock typing of Bridge_2012 for the benefit of considering influences on porosity to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the estimates of geomechanical properties for the past-drilled wells comprise Camargo_2019 does not explicitly recite Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength. Camargo_2021, however, makes obvious Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength. ( par 83: “A stress magnitude quantification performed by Stress Tensor Prediction Module 150 through each realization is controlled by several sets of parameters which are distributed into the 3D geo-cellular grid model G of the subsurface region of interest. The parameters include, for example, acoustic sonic wave data, bulk density, elastic properties , rock strength properties, fluid pore pressure and stress boundary conditions. “ ( Examiner note: where the examiner interprets Biot’s coefficient as a relationship between pore pressure and stress conditions on a rock, where the examiner interprets the invention of Camargo_2021 as including a Biot coefficient)… par 100: “Optimization in the Stress Regime Magnitude Optimization Module 170 begins with capturing a range of variability for each rock property and formation parameter variable introduced in the model. As has been described, these variables include elastic properties conversion from dynamic to static for the Young's Modulus (E) and Poisson's Ratio (v); Unconfined Compressive Strength ( UCS ); Tensile Strength (TS); stress boundary conditions; and petrophysical properties as porosity, mineral volume, and the like.”) As already discussed, Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been the use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way. Camargo_2019 teaches a base method for modeling well reservoirs using parameters such as in FIG. 5 “pore pressure” (104c) and “petrophysics properties” (106). Camargo_2021 improves upon this base method for well modeling, by further specifying that these properties include Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the parameters being modeled in Camargo_2019 under petrophysics properties would include things such as tensile strength, and would have been able to improve the base method in the same way by specifying the properties to reach the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the base well modeling method of Camargo_2019 with the improvement of specifying properties chosen for well modeling of Camargo_2021 for the benefit of having a more specific model to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 4: Camargo_2019 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the 3D property modeling results in a 3D distribution of Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength , and wherein the 3D property modeling comprises a process of filling cells of a 3D grid with one or both of discrete and continuous properties. (Par 40: “ A 3D geomechanics model process 160 of natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 provides the measures and indications of rock mechanical properties distribution. The results of 3D geomechanics model process 160 include elastic rock properties and rock strength throughout the 3D geological grid. “) Camargo_2019 does not expressly recite distribution of Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength Camargo_2021, however, makes obvious distribution of Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength ( par 83: “A stress magnitude quantification performed by Stress Tensor Prediction Module 150 through each realization is controlled by several sets of parameters which are distributed into the 3D geo-cellular grid model G of the subsurface region of interest. The parameters include, for example, acoustic sonic wave data, bulk density, elastic properties , rock strength properties, fluid pore pressure and stress boundary conditions. “ ( Examiner note: where the examiner interprets Biot’s coefficient as a relationship between pore pressure and stress conditions on a rock, where the examiner interprets the invention of Camargo_2021 as including a Biot coefficient)… par 100: “Optimization in the Stress Regime Magnitude Optimization Module 170 begins with capturing a range of variability for each rock property and formation parameter variable introduced in the model. As has been described, these variables include elastic properties conversion from dynamic to static for the Young's Modulus (E) and Poisson's Ratio (v); Unconfined Compressive Strength ( UCS ); Tensile Strength (TS); stress boundary conditions; and petrophysical properties as porosity, mineral volume, and the like.”) As already discussed, Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been the use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way. Camargo_2019 teaches a base method for modeling well reservoirs using parameters such as in FIG. 5 “pore pressure” (104c) and “petrophysics properties” (106). Camargo_2021 improves upon this base method for well modeling, by further specifying that these properties include Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, Biot coefficient, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the parameters being modeled in Camargo_2019 under petrophysics properties would include things such as tensile strength, and would have been able to improve the base method in the same way by specifying the properties to reach the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the base well modeling method of Camargo_2019 with the improvement of specifying properties chosen for well modeling of Camargo_2021 for the benefit of having a more specific model to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 5: Camargo_2019 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the NFP for a field having past-drilled wells comprises a discrete fracture network (Par 32: “The natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 is performed to quantify fracture density in the subsurface reservoir layer 10 using the geomechanics fracture controller results from step 130, and fracture characterization 172 provided from core samples and borehole well log images from a borehole image (BHI) analysis process 110 a . Step 132 also determines fracture dimensions and their properties into the discrete fracture model , as will be described. Examples of the fracture properties resulting from step 132 include fracture position, orientation, geometry, porosity, aperture, permeability, and the like. It should be understood that other fracture properties could also be estimated during step 132, if desired.” ) and results in a distribution of discrete natural fractures in terms of sizes and orientations, including azimuth and dip). (Par 43: “ A geomechanics fracture indicator process 162 of natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 forms indications of fractures based on selected rock mechanical properties distributed for the 3D geomechanics model resulting from step 160. The mechanical stratigraphy is defined in the step 160 by using the Brittleness concept can be used as a geomechanics fracture indicator to define the fracture position and density or spacing through the layering. A strain or plastic strain model calculated through the step 144 and 160 can be used as indicator of fracture orientation (Dip and azimuth ) and possible areal/volumetric density distribution, according with the kind of geological structural environment.”) Claim 6: Camargo_2019 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the 3D geomechanics model comprises predicting a 3D distribution of in-situ stresses, pore pressure, and geomechanical properties, and wherein the 3D geomechanics model is configured to simulate in-situ stress changes due to drilling rock fragmentation. (Par 40: “ A 3D geomechanics model process 160 of natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 provides the measures and indications of rock mechanical properties distribution . The results of 3D geomechanics model process 160 include elastic rock properties and rock strength throughout the 3D geological grid . The 3D geomechanics model process 160 can be calculated by boundary conditions to simulate the in situ stress regime . “ … Par 41: “Typically, determination of the 3D geomechanics model in the step 160 requires elastic seismic inversion 104 b in the form of acoustic impedance, bulk density, and also pore pressure 104 c covering the 3D geological model area. “) Camargo_2019 does not expressly recite due to drilling rock fragmentation. Camargo_2021, however, makes obvious due to drilling rock fragmentation. ( par 109: ”Before a wellbore is drilled, the formation rock is in a state of equilibrium. This state, the initial state or “in-situ” conditions. Once a well is drilled, wellbore stresses (FIG. 15) are introduced and perturbations in the local stress field created . These are generally controlled by the interaction between the mud and formation interface during drilling.”) As already mentioned Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching in the prior art. Camargo_2019 models’ natural fractures across the wellbore. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that this is because wellbores are used for drilling. Camargo_2021 teaches “due to drilling rock fragmentation” so that they could measure rock failure conditions when drilling par 113: “Two main rock failure criteria can be modeled based on the wellbore stress conditions: shear and tensile failure. FIG. 16 represents graphically at 187 interrelation for rock samples between normal stress ?, shear stress r and coefficient of friction ? in a rock matrix in what is known as a Mohr diagram or circle. FIG. 16 thus is a plot of conditions when rock failure occurs.” ( Examiner note: where the “stresses” discussed are from par 109 “Once a well is drilled, wellbore stresses (FIG. 15) are introduced “). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success by including stress due to drilling rock fragmentation so that they could also simulate wellbore stability for drilling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the natural fracture well model of Camargo_2019 with the wellbore stability changes due to drilling rock fragmentation of Camargo_2021 for the benefit of measuring wellbore stability and rock failure criteria to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 9: The limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 an d are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Camargo_2019 makes obvious the additional limitation of A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising: (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Claim 10: The limitations of claim 10 are substantially the same as those of claim 2 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Claim 12: The limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as those of claim 4 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Claim 13: The limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as those of claim 5 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 5. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Claim 14: The limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as those of claim 6 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 6. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Claim 17: The limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of A computer-implemented system, comprising: 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 operations comprising: ( par 51: “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the data processing system D includes a computer 200 having a master node processor 202 and memory 204 coupled to the processor 202 to store operating instructions , control information and database records therein.” … par 54: “The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.) Claim 18: The limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as those of claim 2 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The computer-implemented system of claim 17 ( par 51: “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the data processing system D includes a computer 200 having a master node processor 202 and memory 204 coupled to the processor 202 to store operating instructions , control information and database records therein.”) Claim 20: The limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 4 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The computer-implemented system of claim 17 ( par 51: “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the data processing system D includes a computer 200 having a master node processor 202 and memory 204 coupled to the processor 202 to store operating instructions , control information and database records therein.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camargo_2019, Camargo_2021, Hiu_2019, Gu_2016 , GDI_2016, Bridge_2012, and “Geophysical Research on Rock Mass Quality Evaluation for Infrastructure Design” (Hasan_2017) Claim 3:The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the rock quality evaluation comprise Camargo_2021 makes obvious water content , and rock quality typing ( (par 52: “The rock physics model 122 is focused on predicting dynamic pressure wave velocity Vp and shear wave velocity Vs as accurately as possible, which is suitable for further mechanical modeling. By using the porosity and clay content from well logs, an analysis of which rock physics models are most suitable is performed.”) Examiner note: Where a rock physics model which contains porosity and clay content from well logs is interpreted as an evaluation of the quality of rock.) Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 do not expressly recite water content Hasan_2017 however makes obvious water content ( page 2 par 4: “the geological properties such as rock type , degree of weathering and water content , fractures/faults, porosity, and permeability”) Camargo_2019 and Hasan_2017 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well designs. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019, Camargo_2021, Hiu_2019, Gu_2016 , GDI_2016, Bridge_2012, and Hasan_2017. The rational would be to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art. The prior arts of Camargo_2019 build models using geological properties. See Camargo_2019 abstract “The mechanical properties of the formation rock in the reservoirs serve as a main controller to model the natural fractures distribution and their properties. “ While Camargo_2019 does not expressly recite that water content is an example of a property, Hasan_2017 states that an example of properties is water content. Conclusion “In this work, we used an integrated geophysical approach involving ERT and IP methods to reliably assess the rock mass quality entirely over large area and to distinguish between water and clay for the success of engineering structures in Huizhou, Guangdong, China.” Where hasan_2017 implies that characterizing water content to distinguish between water and clay is important for supporting well structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the geological parameters for modeling of Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 with the consideration of water content of Hasan_2017 for the benefit of ensuring support for well structures for drilling to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 11: The limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 3 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non- transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Claim 19: The limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as those of claim 3 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The computer-implemented system of claim 17 ( par 51: “As illustrated in FIG. 7, the data processing system D includes a computer 200 having a master node processor 202 and memory 204 coupled to the processor 202 to store operating instructions , control information and database records therein.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camargo_2019, Camargo_2021, Hiu_2019, Gu_2016 , GDI_2016, Bridge_2012, and US 20190203593 A1 (Fullmer_2019) Claim 7: Camargo_2019 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising performing diagenetic rock typing analysis for sweet spot identification and drilling rate of penetration for cost evaluation, and making decision for selecting drilling program and well placement based on the diagenetic rock typing analysis. (Par 50: “After validation by cross-check during step 134, a final fracture model is produced as indicated at step 174 as a result of the fracture modeling process 120. As previously described, the fracture model so formed indicates the presence and extent of natural fractures in the subsurface geological structures. Based on the indicated present and extent of natural fractures, drilling during step 122 (FIG. 1) to locations in the subsurface reservoir layer “) Examiner note: Where Camargo_2019 here teaches choosing well placement based on the presence of natural fractures, rather than based on diagenetic rock typing analysis Camargo_2019 does not expressly recite performing diagenetic rock typing analysis for sweet spot identification and drilling rate of penetration for cost evaluation, and making decision for selecting drilling program and well placement based on the diagenetic rock typing analysis Fullmer_2019, however, makes obvious performing diagenetic rock typing analysis ( par 39: “As such, the first well is used to determine a dynamic rock type scheme that may be used to translate it to the second well and the space between using data that can be found to do the translation. By way of example, the pore type translation may include associating pore types with mappable elements; performing thresholding; performing NMR log translations; performing log motif analysis; performing depositional and diagensis analysis ; performing PLTs, cased hole logs, or other downhole data analysis; and/or performing property integration (e.g., porosity mapping) analysis.”) for sweet spot identification and drilling rate of penetration for cost evaluation, and making decision for selecting drilling program and well placement based on the diagenetic rock typing analysis ( par 47: “Once the pore type framework is created, subsurface modeling or dynamic modeling may be performed.” … par 48: “Once the modeling is complete, the hydrocarbon operations may be performed based on the simulation results. The hydrocarbon operations may include field development, which may involve determining the placement of one or more wells and/or determining a completion strategy for each of the respective wells. ( Examiner note: selecting drilling program and well placement based on the analysis, where the placement of one well is the “sweet spot”) In addition, the hydrocarbon operations may include determining production feasibility, field development forecasting , field development options, and/or determining performance forecasts .” ( Examiner note: all of which imply a cost based evaluation). … par 60: “As a result, this may provide enhancements to production at lower costs and lower risk.” ( Examiner note: Where the goal of lower costs implies the well placement is decided to lower the cost) Camargo_2019 and Fullmer_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019 and Fullmer_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation as proposed in Fullmer_2019. The reference of Camargo_2019 teaches modeling the reservoir using properties such as pore pressure (FIG. 5. 104c). Fullmer_2019 teaches defining rock types based on the pore types, and also doing diagenesis analysis to map the pore types for their well model. Fullmer_2019 does this, in order to par 60: “As a result, this may provide enhancements to production at lower costs and lower risk.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the reservoir model of Camargo_2019 to include diagenesis rock type analysis and pore type well modeling of Fullmer_2019 for the benefit of reducing cost and increasing safety to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 15: The limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as those of claim 7 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 7. Additionally, Camargo_2019 makes obvious the additional limitations of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camargo_2019, Camargo_2021, Hiu_2019, Gu_2016 , GDI_2016, Bridge_2012, and (CN 111206912 A Hu_2020) Claim 8: Camargo_2019 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: (see claim 1) extracting natural fracture information along a final well trajectory of the new well; (par 36: “The fracture modeling step 132 receives the results of the 1D natural fracture characterization 172, which is obtained from the borehole image resistivity analysis or acoustic image interpretation 110 a of the rock general characterizations 110 and represents the intensity fracture, aperture, fracture classification and fracture orientation along a wellbore, such as those indicated at 28 and 30.” ) simulating, using the 3D property modeling and natural fracture information (par 40: “ A 3D geomechanics model process 160 of natural fracture model prediction processing stage 132 provides the measures and indications of rock mechanical properties distribution. The results of 3D geomechanics model process 160 include elastic rock properties and rock strength throughout the 3D geological grid. The 3D geomechanics model process 160 can be calculated by boundary conditions to simulate the in situ stress regime.”) , changes in in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory of the new well that are induced by drilling rock fragmentation; Camargo_2019 does not expressly recite simulating, using the 3D property modeling and natural fracture information changes in in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory of the new well that are induced by drilling rock fragmentation; updating, based on the simulating, the in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory; and determining, based at least on the updated in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory, whether the discrete natural fractures can shear slip or not after drilling the new well. Camargo_2021, however, makes obvious changes in in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory of the new well that are induced by drilling rock fragmentation; (par 23: “FIGS. 15A, 15B and 15C are schematic diagrams illustrating wellbore stresses as a result of perturbation of the formation rock as a result of drilling operations.” … Par 82: “The Stress Regime Magnitude Optimization Module 170 determines three principal stresses (maximum horizontal stress ?.sub.Hmax, minimum horizontal stress ?.sub.hmin and vertical stress ?.sub.V). The Stress Regime Magnitude Optimization Module 170 also provides quantification of the three principal stresses based on rock strength properties while modeling the wellbore stability incorporating drilling parameters.” ( Examiner note: Where incorporating drilling parameters implies that it’s induced by drilling rock fragmentation). … Par 109: “ Before a wellbore is drilled, the formation rock is in a state of equilibrium. This state, the initial state or “in-situ” conditions. Once a well is drilled, wellbore stresses (FIG. 15) are introduced and perturbations in the local stress field created. These are generally controlled by the interaction between the mud and formation interface during drilling.”) updating, based on the simulating, the in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory; ( par 132: “In Genetic Algorithm optimization during step 200 for minimization of the objective function representing the error functions of predicted stress tensors, a population of candidate solutions for the optimization processing is evolved toward an optimum solution. Each candidate solution has a set of properties representing different sets estimated measures of tensor stresses in the grid cells of the grid cell model of the a subsurface geological structure based on postulated properties of the subsurface reservoir.”) Examiner note: Where genetic algorithm optimization to minimize an objective function implies an updating based on the simulation and determining, based at least on the updated in-situ stresses along the final well trajectory, whether the discrete natural fractures can shear slip or not after drilling the new well. (par 113: “Two main rock failure criteria can be modeled based on the wellbore stress conditions: shear and tensile failure. FIG. 16 represents graphically at 187 interrelation for rock samples between normal stress ?, shear stress r and coefficient of friction ? in a rock matrix in what is known as a Mohr diagram or circle. FIG. 16 thus is a plot of conditions when rock failure occurs.” … par 132: “In Genetic Algorithm optimization during step 200 for minimization of the objective function representing the error functions of predicted stress tensors, a population of candidate solutions for the optimization processing is evolved toward an optimum solution. Each candidate solution has a set of properties representing different sets estimated measures of tensor stresses in the grid cells of the grid cell model of the a subsurface geological structure based on postulated properties of the subsurface reservoir.”) Examiner note: Where Camargo_2021 makes obvious optimizing stresses, presumably based on the rock failure criteria discussed above. As already mentioned Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called well modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching in the prior art. Camargo_2019 models’ natural fractures across the wellbore. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that this is because wellbores are used for drilling. Camargo_2021 teaches “due to drilling rock fragmentation” so that they could measure rock failure conditions when drilling par 113: “Two main rock failure criteria can be modeled based on the wellbore stress conditions: shear and tensile failure. FIG. 16 represents graphically at 187 interrelation for rock samples between normal stress ?, shear stress r and coefficient of friction ? in a rock matrix in what is known as a Mohr diagram or circle. FIG. 16 thus is a plot of conditions when rock failure occurs.” ( Examiner note: where the “stresses” discussed are from par 109 “Once a well is drilled, wellbore stresses (FIG. 15) are introduced “). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success by including stress due to drilling rock fragmentation so that they could also simulate wellbore stability for drilling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the natural fracture well model of Camargo_2019 with the wellbore stability changes due to drilling rock fragmentation of Camargo_2021 for the benefit of measuring wellbore stability and rock failure criteria to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Camargo_2019 and Camargo_2021 do not expressly recite discrete natural fractures Hu_2020 however, makes obvious discrete natural fractures ( par 10-23: “A method for evaluating the technical adaptability of self-supporting fracturing technology in fractured reservoirs includes the following steps: S1: Collect reservoir physical property parameters, natural fracture parameters, rock mechanics parameters, geostress parameters, and formation fluid parameters; identify the occurrence and development degree of natural fractures, rock mechanics properties and geostress distribution, formation fluid properties, and reservoir physical property development degree. When the evaluation result of the degree of development of natural fractures in the reservoir is no development or weak development, the reservoir is not suitable for self-supporting fracturing process. When the evaluation result of the degree of development of natural fractures in the reservoir is relatively developed or very developed, proceed to step S2; S2: Perform stress analysis on the natural fracture surface of the reservoir to determine the failure type of the natural fracture. When the failure type of the natural fracture is tensile failure, the reservoir is not suitable for self-supporting fracturing process; When the failure type of the natural crack is shear failure, proceed to step S3; S3: Calculate the shear slip of natural cracks by combining the shear displacement crack displacement calculation method; S4: Combining the stress analysis of the natural fracture surface with the shear slip of the natural fracture, establish an experimental scheme for the self-supporting flow conduction capacity of the shear fracture, and complete the experimental test of the flow conduction capacity of the self-supporting fracture. S5: Use the Cinco criterion to determine the technical suitability of self-supporting fracturing technology. If the Cinco criteria are met, the reservoir is suitable for self-supporting fracturing. If the reservoir does not meet the Cinco criteria, it is not suitable for self-supporting fracturing. Preferably, the reservoir physical properties include porosity, permeability, and saturation. “ Camargo_2019, Camargo_2021, and Hu_2020 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called reservoir modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Camargo_2019, Camargo_2021, and Hu_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations for use in different fields. The prior art of Hu_2020 evaluates whether or not a well is able to support self-supporting fracturing technology par 8: “To address the aforementioned issues, this invention aims to provide a method for evaluating the technical adaptability of self-supporting fracturing technology in fractured reservoirs. This method can conveniently provide an evaluation and analysis of the adaptability of self-supporting fracturing technology to fractured reservoirs, effectively providing a reference for the efficient development of unconventional oil and gas reservoirs.” This is due to market forces, par 4: “To achieve economic development, it is necessary to artificially create or connect a large number of fractures to fully realize the reservoir potential. For low-permeability reservoirs, the self-supporting fracturing process produces longer and narrower fractures due to hydraulic fracturing.” Carmago_2019 also deals with low permeability reservoirs Par 6: “Natural fractures can also connect the porous and non-porous media of different rock layers of a reservoir in lower permeability conditions or situations.” One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that self-supporting fracturing technology could be implemented in the modeling invention of Carmago_2019, and in doing so, the user of the invention would also ensure the technology could support the different technique by evaluating the shear slip of natural fractures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the fracturing modeling and workflow of Carmago_2019 and Carmago_2021 with evaluating natural fracture shear slip of Hu_2020 for the benefit of ensuring the new well can handle the different fracturing technology (such as UBCTD) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 16: The limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as those of claim 8 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 8. Additionally, Camargo_2021 makes obvious the additional limitation of The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9 (par 54: “The data processing system D includes program code 222 stored in non-transitory memory 204 of the computer 200 . The program code 222 according to the present invention is in the form of computer operable instructions causing the data processor 202 to form subsurface reservoir models with 3D natural fractures prediction according to the present invention in the manner that has been set forth.” … par 55: “Program code 222 may also be contained on a data storage device such as server 220 as a non-transitory computer readable medium, as shown.”) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm. 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 5712723652. 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. /A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 2 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 3 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 4 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 5 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 6 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 7 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 8 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 9 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 10 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 11 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 12 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 13 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 14 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 15 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 16 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 17 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 18 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 19 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 20 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 21 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 22 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 23 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 24 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 25 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 26 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 27 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 28 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 29 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 30 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 31 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 32 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 33 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 34 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 35 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 36 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 37 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 38 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 39 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 40 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 41 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 42 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 43 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 44 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 45 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 46 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 47 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 48 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 49 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 50 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 51 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 52 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 53 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 54 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 55 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 17/900,396 Page 56 Art Unit: 2187
Prosecution Insights