Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/11/2026.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 have been amended. No claims are added.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. The amendments have not made the claim eligible, as the added limitations in the independent claim further detail the abstract idea, reciting mathematical and in one limitation a mathematical and mental process . The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection under U.S.C. 103 is made with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 14. The newly added limitations require application of different prior art than that previously relied upon. Accordingly, the rejection is properly made final in accordance with MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moncorge et al, ‘Sequential fully implicit formulation for compositional simulation using natural variables’ Journal of Computational Physics 371, pp690-711, 2018 (“MON”), in view of Klemetsdal, et al, Efficient reordered nonlinear Gauss-Seidel solveres with high order black-oil models, January 6, 2020 _https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01630 , (“KLE”) in further view of Mikyška, Implementation of higher-order methods for robust and efficient compositional simulation, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (2010) 2898–2913 (“MIK”)
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the Amendments and Arguments filed on 05/11/2026 which have been considered. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. The amendments have not made the claim eligible. The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
With the exception of amendments of the computing limitation specifying for individual ones of the plurality of cells sequentially based on reordering, the added limitations in the independent claim have been analyzed individually and in combination in the previous dependent claims. These limitation continue to recite abstract ideas, either mathematical concepts (such as defining a permutation matrix, using permutation matrix to solve for the movement) computing the equilibrium. These limitations specify additional modeling assumptions/constraints within the mathematical model and simulation. Reordering on upwind direction can also be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Even if certain elements would be considered determining field of use or generic computing, these elements are not sufficient to integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more. The “reordering” and “computing” based on reordering remain abstract. If performed by a computer, the computing elements would be additional elements but which does not change the abstract nature of the claim.
As for the “execution architecture” being an improvement in simulation, the Examiner could see that potentially the steps of the method could provide an improvement, however, the specific steps, which are also part of the flowchart of method for simulation in Fig. 1, are reciting abstract ideas – and in order to have an integration into a practical application the improvement needs to come from the additional elements, not solely from the abstract idea itself.
As for the statements that “it is a specific improvement in how the computer organizes and executes the simulation computations” and that “Under the Office's guidance at MPEP § 2106.05(a), a claim that provides "a specific improvement to the way a computer operates" integrates a judicial exception into a practical application” the Examiner respectfully disagrees that this would apply to the current situation, since no improvement in how a computer operates is recited in the claim, nor disclosed in the specification – there is only a generic computer system, with no improvement how it operates. The execution of a specific algorithm on a generic computer does not mean the computer operates in a different way.
To restate for clarity, the analysis does not claim there is no potential improvement, but that the improvement comes (solely) from the steps which recite abstract ideas.
Regarding “Nothing in the record establishes that, before Applicant's effective filing date, it
was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of compositional reservoir
simulation to derive a permutation matrix from the upwind flow direction of the grid cells …etc; This is related to the above: no record for WURC exists for such limitations since these are considered abstract ideas and WURC only needed for additional elements in particular for insignificant extra solution activities which the courts have not already established these are WURC.
Similarly, regarding “Because the additional elements are neither recited at a high level of generality nor shown to be conventional, the claims satisfy Step 2B” the Examiner restates these were interpreted as abstract ideas and not additional elements.
The arguments have not been found convincing and the amendments have not made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, in view of the amendments and arguments the rejection is withdrawn. One has to note, however, to the remark “Reliance on Moncorge to reject the present claims would be misplaced because it would conflate two completely different uses of the word 'sequential.' Moncorge describes a 'Sequential Fully Implicit' (SFI) method…” that the instant application also teaches a sequential fully implicit method “[0002] The present disclosure relates to reservoir simulation in the hydrocarbon industry, and more particularly to, a conservative, sequential fully implicit method for compositional reservoir simulation.“ Nonetheless the amended claim specifies sequentially based on reordering for individual cells and in that context it differs from Moncorge. On the other hand this aspect of sequential processing based on permutation matrix is taught by Klemetsdal. There is no doubt in the interpretation of the permutation matrix since in fact the Specification indicates in Algorithm 2 as per reference [16], which though not included in the specification of 10/17/2022 is clarified in the paper by the inventors to be the earlier paper by Klemtsdal (see detail analysis in the rejection below). The other limitations brought to the independent claim were part of the canceled claim and the analysis is of similar nature as in the non-final.
The independent claims are thus rejected under 35 USC 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. The number in the parenthesis, next to a claim number, is the number of the parent claim. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-4, 7-11 12 and 14 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-4, 7-11 directed to a method), machine (claims 12 directed to an system) and manufacture (claims 14 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 12, 14, recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] reordering the plurality of cells based on upwind direction to define a permutation matrix
[B] computing, for individual ones of the plurality of cells sequentially based on the reordering,1) pressure, 2) saturation, 3) component balance, and 4) phase equilibrium to solve for movement of liquid and gas phases over a series of time- steps in the plurality of cells to represent fluid flow within the subterranean reservoir,
[C] wherein the 2) saturation, 3) component balance, and 4) phase equilibrium are computed, sequentially based on the reordering, using the permutation matrix to solve for the movement of the liquid and gas phase in each of the plurality of cells, and wherein thermodynamic fluxes for each of the plurality of cells are accounted for when computing the phase equilibrium.
Each of the limitations with an active method step recites a mathematical concept; the reordering also can be performed in the mind or with a pen and paper and thus is also a mental process: reordering, computation based on reordering, using the permutation matrix to solve.
(In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the claim recites a process aimed at: “computing sequentially for each cell in a specific order, compositional/physical properties of a fluid in motion”
The combination covers iterative mathematical calculations, which are Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I) ) In principle these can also be solved by a person with pen and paper which characterize a mental process.
Accordingly, claims 1, 12, 14 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2) (S2B)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because no additional elements does so, and thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The use of computer for computing is insufficient to integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more. If an interpretation of additional elements could be made for elements now included in the abstract idea, these may be characteristics of a field of use, and not able to integrate into a practical application.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 12, 14 are ineligible.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Claim 2, 13, further recites:
wherein computing over the series of time-steps is repeated until a convergence criteria is satisfied.
The claims continue to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the parent claim. The limitation merely specifies additional mathematical parameters and constraints within the mathematical model. Such refinement of the mathematical calculations constitutes further recitation of the abstract mathematical concept itself, and there are no additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 3, 4, 7-11 further recite
3) wherein all molecular components in each of the liquid and gas phases are fixed to move with an equivalent phase velocity.
4) further comprising updating the saturation based on the computed phase equilibrium.
7) wherein the thermodynamic fluxes between adjacent cells are computed based on a difference between fluid volume and pore volume.
8) wherein an Equation of State (EoS) is used for computing the phase equilibrium.
9) wherein fluid density is modified to conserve mass and volume while computing the phase equilibrium.
10) wherein the phase equilibrium is only solved for in phase transition cells, cells in a two-phase region, or cells during a first iteration in a time-step.
11) wherein a multiscale finite volume framework is utilized for partitioning the model of the subterranean reservoir and solving for the movement of the liquid and gas phases.
Claims 3, 4 7--11 continue to recite, and further reinforce/elaborate on the abstract idea in the independent/parent claim. Each of the respective limitations merely specifies additional modeling assumptions/constraints within the mathematical model and simulation. The same analysis as for claim 2 applies to all.
Such refinements of the mathematical calculations constitute further recitation of the abstract mathematical concept itself, and there are no additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Any benefit provided by these additional limitations relates only to refinement or increased accuracy of the mathematical model itself and computation of the model, rather than an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Improvements directed to the judicial exception – in this case improvements to the abstract mathematical modeling/calculations/computations - do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements to provide significantly more.
Thus, claims 3, 4, 7--11 are found ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Moncorge et al, ‘Sequential fully implicit formulation for compositional simulation using natural variables’ Journal of Computational Physics 371, pp690-711, 2018 (“MON”), in view of Klemetsdal, et al, Efficient reordered nonlinear Gauss-Seidel solveres with high order black-oil models, January 6, 2020 _https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01630 , (“KLE”) in further view of Mikyška, Implementation of higher-order methods for robust and efficient compositional simulation, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (2010) 2898–2913 (“MIK”)
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 12, 14 MON discloses
computing, for individual ones of the plurality of cells sequentially based on the reordering,1) pressure, 2) saturation, 3) component balance, and 4) phase equilibrium to solve for movement of liquid and gas phases over a series of time- steps in the plurality of cells to represent fluid flow within the subterranean reservoir, {[Abstract] The Sequential Fully Implicit (SFI) method was proposed [12], in the context of a Multiscale Finite Volume (MSFV) formulation, to simulate coupled immiscible multiphase fluid flow in porous media. Later, Lee et al. [15]extended the SFI formulation to the black-oil model, whereby the gas component is allowed to dissolve in the oil phase. Most recently, the SFI approach was extended to fully compositional isothermal displacements by Moncorgé etal. [21]. SFI schemes solve the fully coupled system in two steps: (1) Construct and solve the pressure equation (flow problem). (2) Solve the coupled species transport equations for the phase saturations and phase compositions. The first step consists of forming and solving a nonlinear pressure equation, which is a weighted sum of all the component mass conservation equations. A Newton-based scheme is used to iterate out all the pressure dependent nonlinearities in both the accumulation and flux terms of the overall-volume balance equation. The resulting pressure field is used to compute the Darcy phase velocities and the total-velocity. The second step of the new SFI scheme entails introducing the overall-mass density as a degree-of-freedom, and solving the full set of component conservation equations cast in the natural-variables form (i.e., saturations and phase compositions). During the second step, the pressure and the total-velocity fields are fixed. [p696 first paragraph] a phase-split computation is performed for each cell. [p693 top] The nh+5constraint equations involve variables in the control-volume (cell) under consideration…The remaining constraints represent thermodynamic phase equilibrium for each hydrocarbon component (nhe quations).
MON discloses calculations for saturation, component balance and phase equilibrium to solve for the movement of liquid and gas phases in each of the plurality of cells. MON does not disclose the reordering and the computing based on reordering, however KLE discloses:
reordering the plurality of cells based on upwind direction to define a permutation matrix;
computing, for individual ones of the plurality of cells sequentially based on the reordering
pressure, 2) saturation, 3) component balance, and 4) phase equilibrium to solve for movement of liquid and gas phases over a series of time- steps in the plurality of cells to represent fluid flow within the subterranean reservoir, wherein the 2) saturation, 3) component balance, and 4) phase equilibrium are computed, sequentially based on the reordering, using the permutation matrix to solve for the movement of the liquid and gas phase in each of the plurality of cells, {[Abstract] This solver uses intercell fluxes to reorder the grid cells according to their upstream neighbors, and groups cells that are mutually dependent because of counter-current flow into local clusters. The cells and local clusters can then be solved in sequence, starting from the inflow and moving gradually downstream, since each new cell or local cluster will only depend on upstream neighbors that have already been computed.; [p6 5.1 Reordering based on intecell fluxes, right col, top : acyclic graph (DAG) induced by the intercell fluxes and use this to reorder the cells, we can solve the transport equations cell-by-cell by traversing the sorted graph. The algebraic interpretation of this is the following: If we linearize the nonlinear transport equations for all cells simultaneously, and permute the system according to the topological order, we obtain a lower-triangular matrix…Instead we solve the nonlinear transport equations R_;i = 0 cell-by-cell. This way, we avoid expensive linearizations of large systems of nonlinear equations.} The reordering of cells based on upwind direction to define a permutation matrix which is used to compute sequentially based on reorder is interpreted as permuting the system according to the topological order (and computing based in it). This interpretation is fully supported by the fact that the application at pages 34 presents first step of Algorithm 2
PNG
media_image1.png
104
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And gives reference [16] for the computing of Permutation matrix, which reorders based on upwind direction, and although the reference is not included in the specification of 10/172022 (or in an IDS) the paper by the same inventors describing the same Algorithm (see below) clarifies the reference 16 to be the earlier paper by Klemdal,
PNG
media_image2.png
146
1308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
48
1270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MON with KLE. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of reducing expensive computation. As KLE discloses [page 6 right col] “If we linearize the nonlinear transport equations for all cells simultaneously, and permute the system according to the topological order, we obtain a lower-triangular matrix. Note, however, that we never assemble the discretization matrix for the full system in the reordering solution procedure. Instead we solve the nonlinear transport equations Rα,i = 0 cell-by-cell. This way, we avoid expensive linearizations of large systems of nonlinear equations.”
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON in view of KLE.
MON/KLE does not teach, however MIK discloses:
wherein thermodynamic fluxes for each of the plurality of cells are accounted for when computing the phase equilibrium. {[p2899 bottom] The splitting of components between the phases is given by the following thermodynamic equilibrium equations; [p 2905 5. Computational algorithm] (c) Calculate fluxes using the procedure described in Section 4.3.(d) Compute new overall composition using one explicit Euler time step of the DG scheme (32) or FV-MUSCL scheme.; g) Perform the phase stability analysis and flash calculation to obtain number of phases and phase composition at the new pressure, temperature and overall composition at element centers and at element faces. [2904] , the five flashes at every elements are performed to obtain equilibrium compositions xa;i;K at element centers (using the average element pressure and overall composition) and xai;K;E at element faces (using the traces of pressures, and overall composition evaluated at element faces evaluated in terms of the average values and reconstructed slopes). The values xai;K;E are then used to evaluate xgai;K;E needed in (33) using upwinding (31). } Mikyska algorithm steps describe calculation of fluxes, updating cell composition and subsequent flash calculation. Because the phase equilibrium is computed after and based on flux-updated cell state, the thermodynamic (mass/component) fluxes for each cell are necessarily a accounted for which computing the phase equilibrium.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MON/KLE with MYK. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of capturing the effect of phase equilibrium in confined space and improve numerical convergence educing expensive computation.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON/KLE in further view of MYK.
Regarding claims 2(1), MON/KLE/MIK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. Both MON and KLE disclose convergence over a series of time-steps. MON discloses:
wherein computing over the series of time-steps is repeated until a convergence criteria is satisfied.{see at least p696 2.2.3 recomputing all the variable by phase-split computations…After convergence of the coupled system of component conservation equations…; Here, we propose to converge the system as in the first class of methods…At convergence, all the components are conserved to the prescribed tolerance; [p697] The first strategy consists of continuing with outer iterations until the dimensionless residuals |Rthermo|∞and |Rut|∞(infinity norm) fall below a tight tolerance. For strongly coupled flow and transport, even a tolerance of 0.01 may take many outer iterations, or no convergence may be achieved at all. This strategy is not practical, as it requires too many iterations in order to be competitive with methods like mSFI [21]. The second strategy consists of relaxing the tolerances of |Rthermo|∞and |Rut|∞in order to achieve convergence with less outer iterations (Qt)j,iare the total volumetric rate from celljto celli(positive if entering celli, negative if leaving celli), (VP)ithe pore volume of cell iand _tthe discretized timestep… From this point on, we can accept the timestep with the converged accumulation terms computed with the quantities ξcand ξw.}
Regarding claim 3(2) MON discloses the limitations of the parent claim. MON further discloses:
3(2) wherein all molecular components in each of the liquid and gas phases are fixed to move with an equivalent phase velocity. {[[p692 2.1.1. The conservation of a hydrocarbon component, c, and of the water component, w, can be written as:… The velocity of each phase p ∈{g, o, w}is given by Darcy’s law [p696] 2.2.3. Compositional system. The second step of the sequential implicit method consists of freezing the pressure and total-velocity fields and advecting the components. For this purpose, we use the transport form of the conservation equations (i.e., Eqs.(7)and (28)).
Regarding claim 4(3) MON discloses the limitations of the parent claim. MON further discloses:
further comprising updating the saturation based on the computed phase equilibrium. {
[p693 top] The nh+5constraint equations involve variables in the control-volume (cell) under consideration….; eq 9-13; The remaining constraints represent thermodynamic phase equilibrium for each hydrocarbon component (nhequations). These local equilibrium constraints are applied only when both hydrocarbon phases (oil and gas) are present in the control volume. Eq 14-21; To compute the thermodynamic values of the saturations and the mole-fractions, we first compute the overall mole-fractions with (15)and (16), we then solve the phase-split system to get the thermodynamic values of the mole-fractions ycand xc. Finally, we use the βpto compute the normalized thermodynamic values of the saturations (normalized values needed for the relative permeabilities and the capillary pressures functions) }
Regarding claim 7(6) MON/KLE/MIK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. MON further discloses:
wherein the thermodynamic fluxes between adjacent cells are computed based on a difference between fluid volume and pore volume. { [p694 2.1.3. Thermodynamic volume equation] It is the volume of phase pdivided by the pore-volume. At convergence, the sum of the thermodynamic volumes of the fluid phases must equal the pore volume} Before convergence the volumes were different and their difference (in form of ratio, till ration becomes 1, was used in computation.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON/KLE/MYK.
Regarding claim 8(7) MON/KLE/MIK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. The combination does not disclose, however MON further discloses:
wherein an Equation of State (EoS) is used for computing the phase equilibrium. {MON [693 2.1.2. ] The remaining constraints represent thermodynamic phase equilibrium for each hydrocarbon component (nhequations). These local equilibrium constraints are applied only when both hydrocarbon phases (oil and gas) are present in the control volume. Existing formulations can be based on black-oil, or K-value correlations [7], as well as the Peng–Robinson [28], Redlich–Kwong [29]and Soave–Redlich–Kwong [30]cubic equations of state (EOS) models. }
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON/KLE/MYK.
Regarding claim 9(8) MON/KLE/MIK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. The combination does not disclose, however MON further discloses:
wherein fluid density is modified to conserve mass and volume while computing the phase equilibrium. { [p692 2.1. ]The overall density, ρt, is used as an additional global variable. [p696 2.2.3]… the moles (mass) of each component are conserved Upon convergence, the mass conservation equation of each of the components is satisfied subject to the desired tolerance; however, some discrepancies in the overall-volume balance and the total-velocity persist. Only the overall-volume balance splitting error has been defined in these previous works. Attempts to reduce this volume splitting error have been done in Acs et al., Trangenstein andBell, Pau et al., Faigle et al. and Doster et al. by using a local relaxation term to keep the error bounded in time or by local smoothing[8]. They all result in local changes relaxing the mass balance equations. However, these volume splitting errors are very local and have rarely large effect on the overall flow. On the contrary, the total-velocity splitting error, has never been documented before and has a much larger support. We show that we need to control this second splitting error to recover the fully-implicit solution}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON/KLE/MYK.
Regarding claim 10(9) MON/KLE/MIK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. The combination does not disclose, however MON further discloses:
wherein the phase equilibrium is only solved for in phase transition cells, cells in a two-phase region, or cells during a first iteration in a time-step.{ [MON 696 bottom] Namely, we better control the nonlinearities with the saturations as variables and we compute the phase-split calculations only when a new phase is detected.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON/KLE/MYK.
Regarding claim 11(10) MON/KLE/MIK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. The combination does not disclose, however MON further discloses:
wherein a multiscale finite volume framework is utilized for partitioning the model of the subterranean reservoir and solving for the movement of the liquid and gas phases. {[Mon p 691 bottom 1. Introduction] The Sequential Fully Implicit (SFI) method was first proposed to model multiphase fluid flow without mass exchange in the context of the Multiscale Finite Volume (MSFV) method; [694 bottom] We use a finite-volume method with single-point upstream weighting for the spatial discretization and a first-order implicit (backward Euler) scheme for the integration in time.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MON/KLE/MYK.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
AU 2011332274 A1
EP 1792053 B1
US 20020177986 A1
US 20020177986 A1
US 20100004908 A1
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights