CTFR 17/934,075 CTFR 101494 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1,2,4,7,15 and 17 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 2,4,7,15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1,4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARRIS ; Ashley D.( US 20170175492 A1) in the view of Cross; Timothy A. (US 6246963 B1) further in the view of Nickel ; Michael (US 6640190 B2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARRIS ; Ashley D.( US 20170175492 A1) in the view of Cross; Timothy A. (US 6246963 B1) further in the view of Nickel ; Michael (US 6640190 B2) further in the view of Gee; Timothy William (US 20200300064) . This action is final rejection . Information Disclosure Statement The IDS filed on 05/152024 and 0921/2022 are reviewed and considered. See attached file. Response to Arguments Following Applicants amendments to the drawing , the objections of the drawing is Withdrawn. Following Applicants amendments to the specification, the objections of the specification is Withdrawn. Following Applicants amendments to the abstract, the objections of the abstract is Withdrawn. Following Applicants amendments to the claims, the amended claims overcome U.S.C 101 rejection, so The rejection of claims under U.S.C 101 is Withdrawn. Applicants Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter. Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below. Applicants Argument: Falivene and Stern make no mention of "observed subsidence rates" nor "predicted subsidence rates," let alone determining whether the predicted subsidence rates satisfy a stopping criterion, as required by amended independent claim 1. Falivene and Stern also/ail to make any mention of excluding a subset of predicted subsidence rates from an iterative update for an updated stratigraphic model based on the subset satisfying a stopping criterion, as required by amended independent claim 1. For similar reasons, the cited art also fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention of amended independent claim 15 as a whole to a person skilled in the art applying common sense. Examiner’s Response: The examiner agrees, the combined model of Falivene and Stern make no mention of "observed subsidence rates" nor "predicted subsidence rates," let alone determining whether the predicted subsidence rates satisfy a stopping criterion, as required by amended independent claim 1. Falivene and Stern also/ail to make any mention of excluding a subset of predicted subsidence rates from an iterative update for an updated stratigraphic model based on the subset satisfying a stopping criterion, as required by amended independent claim 1. For similar reasons, the cited art also fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention of amended independent claim 15 as a whole to a person skilled in the art applying common sense. Since the combined model doesn’t teach the amended claims as it is cited above a new U.S.C 103 rejection is made. See below on claim rejection. Applicants Argument: Claims 4 and 7 depend, either directly or indirectly, from amended independent claims 1 and 15, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner's contentions and the cited art do not support an obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 7 based on their dependence on amended independent claims 1 and 15, respectively and Dependent claim 2 also is not disclosed or rendered obvious to a person skilled in the art applying common sense based on their dependence on amended independent claim 1. Examiner’s Response: The examiner agrees the cited arts do not support obviousness rejection for dependent claims 2, 4, 7 because of their dependence on amended independent claim 1. So a new rejection is made based on new prior arts. See below on claim rejection. Applicants Argument: Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer, thus rendering this rejection moot and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested. Examiner’s response: The examiner agrees to withdraw U.S.C 103 rejection for claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is “ Logging system” in claim 15. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Examiner note : The logging system is also indefinite since the specification doesn’t provide a specific structure other than providing what it my include in the logging system ([0030]-[0031]), so it also invoke 35 USC 112 (b), see below for further explanation in 35 USC 112 (b) claim rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 2,4,7,15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. On claims 1 and 15, the claims recites “wherein the stratigraphic model comprises a plurality of cells that comprise a first subset of cells and a second subset of cells ”… “wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells”. while according to the specification [0056] – [0057] and Figure 7, there is a plurality of cells but there is no support in the specification which introduce a “ subset of cells ”. For example according to Figure 7, there is cell 1-4 and each cells goes to simulation model and it produces output for each cells, but it doesn’t show a plurality of subsets. According to [0074], “ the stopping criterion may be evaluated for each cell of the stratigraphic model independently and cells that satisfy the stopping condition may leave the iterative loop and transition to Step 816 leaving only those cells that fail to satisfy the stopping criterion in Step 812 for further updating in additional iterations of the iterative loop (806)” but claims 1 and 15 recites “ first subset of predicted subsidence rates satisfy the stopping criterion, that the second subset of predicted subsidence rates fail to satisfy the stopping criterion ”. As it was cited above the stopping criterion is evaluated cell by cell and there is no subset of predicted subsidence rate to check if it satisfy the stopping criterion or not. Claims 2,4,7 and 17 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), since they depend on Claim 1 or 15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 2,4,7,15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-12 AIA Claim s 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: How can we determine that the first subset of predicted subsidence rates meets the stopping criteria while the second subset does not? Is there a defined criterion for grouping subsidence rates into those that satisfy the stopping criterion and those that do not as first and second subset respectively? Claims 2,4,7 and 17 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), since they depend on Claim 1 or 15 . 07-34-01 Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 disclose “ logging system” , and the specification [0031] –[0032] lists what the logging system my contain, but it does not appear to disclose any structure which is capable to perform the claimed system. Therefore what structure is included in this system is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1,4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARRIS ; Ashley D.( US 20170175492 A1) in the view of Cross; Timothy A. (US 6246963 B1) further in the view of Nickel ; Michael (US 6640190 B2) . As of claim 1 , Harris teaches acquiring, using a logging system comprising a plurality of logging tools, a plurality of well logs from a plurality of wells for a geological region of interest: ( [0004] also used are coring and well logging, which involve taking samples of the various rocks and fluids encountered as a well is drilled, noting the extent of each particular kind of rock that is encountered during the drilling, and inserting various instruments into the well…[0050] data of the available observed measurements of the actual basin, such as well logs, cores, and/or seismic lines if they are available, the technique of the various embodiments may allow identification of one or a suite of simulation model results that are most consistent with all the data that is available in the field) obtaining a plurality of seismic images for the geological region of interest: ([0052], Examples of available actual observed test measurements or information derived from the available actual observed test measurements of the actual basin that is to be simulated may include, but are not limited to: collected seismic data of the actual basin (either or both of 2D and 3D seismic data) acquiring a plurality of core samples from the plurality of wells for the geological region of interest, ([0052], collected seismic data of the actual basin (either or both of 2D and 3D seismic data), collected well log data of the actual basin, collected core data of the actual basin, collected outcrop data of the actual basin, interval thickness data derived for the actual basin, depositional environment data derived for the actual basin, geometry data derived for the actual basin, reservoir property data derived for the actual basin, age data derived for the actual basin, and sedimentation rate derived for the actual basin). wherein the plurality of core samples are physically extracted from the plurality of wells using a coring bit, and ([0004], Other techniques that are also used are coring and well logging, which involve taking samples of the various rocks and fluids encountered as a well is drilled, noting the extent of each particular kind of rock that is encountered during the drilling, and inserting various instruments into the well that measure various rock and fluid properties, such as porosity). wherein the plurality of core samples are used in a laboratory analysis to determine a plurality of geological formation characteristics of the geological region of interest ( [0004], Other techniques that are also used are coring and well logging, which involve taking samples of the various rocks and fluids encountered as a well is drilled, noting the extent of each particular kind of rock that is encountered during the drilling, and inserting various instruments into the well that measure various rock and fluid properties, such as porosity … [0079], The raw actual well log data 332 may contain information to derive interval thickness, reservoir properties, porosity, etc. for the actual basin 202. For the example, the raw actual well log data 332 is evaluated to obtain 334 the porosity 336). determining, by a computer processor, an observed stratigraphic thickness map for a stratigraphic model of the geological region of interest using the plurality of well logs, the plurality of seismic images, and the plurality of geological formation characteristics, ([0080] FIG. 4 is a block diagram 400 of the inputs 402 and outputs 406 for an example stratigraphic forward model simulation program 404. Some potential forward model simulation programs 404, include, but are not limited to: DIONISOS, SEDSIM, SEDPAK, and CSDMS (Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System). For the example shown in FIG. 4, the forward model input parameters 402 for the selected stratigraphic forward model simulation program 404, includes sea level 410, tectonic uplift/subsidence rate 430, and sediment/water discharge rat 450. Based on the forward model input parameter 402 values, the stratigraphic forward model simulation program 404, when executed, outputs a simulated (i.e., modeled) basin 406). performing, using a drilling system comprising a drill bit attached to a drillstring, a drilling operation through the geological region of interest based on the presence of hydrocarbons ([0003] To recover petroleum from these reservoirs typically requires drilling through thousands of feet of overlying rock. The drilling of oil and gas wells is typically a very expensive endeavor. Accordingly, before incurring such a large expense, those involved in the exploration and production of oil and gas reservoirs normally seek to obtain an understanding of the basin geology and, in particular, the basin sedimentology and stratigraphy so that an oil/gas well is drilled in a location that is likely to achieve the desired result. In the case of oil and gas exploration, geologic and seismic data are used to predict the location of sedimentary rocks and structures that are likely to contain an oil/gas reservoir. With respect to developing an oil/gas reservoir, geologic and seismic data are used to predict locations for drilling wells that will facilitate the extraction of additional oil from a reservoir). Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the stratigraphic model comprises a plurality of cells that comprise a first subset of cells and a second subset of cells, wherein the plurality of cells correspond to a plurality of spatial locations within the geological region of interest and a plurality of observed subsidence rates; determining, by a computer simulation using a forward stratigraphic modeler, plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells in the stratigraphic model, wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells, determining, by the computer processor, whether the plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells satisfy a stopping criterion using the observed stratigraphic thickness map; determining, by the computer processor, that the first subset of predicted subsidence rates satisfy the stopping criterion; determining, by the computer processor, that the second subset of predicted subsidence rates fail to satisfy the stopping criterion ; updating, iteratively by the computer processor, the stratigraphic model to produce an updated stratigraphic model in response to the second subset of predicted subsidence rates failing to satisfy the stopping criterion , wherein the first subset of cells corresponding to the first subset of predicted subsidence rates is excluded from an iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model, and wherein the second subset of cells is updated during the iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model based on the second subset of predicted subsidence rates , determining, by the computer processor, a presence of hydrocarbons in the geological region of interest using the updated stratigraphic model While Cross teaches wherein the stratigraphic model comprises a plurality of cells that comprise a first subset of cells and a second subset of cells, (Col. 11 line 8-12, The stratigraphic observation data used in the stratigraphic inverse model was comprised of facies tract thickness and position for fifteen correlated stratigraphic units in each of the five wells 40A-40E). wherein the plurality of cells correspond to a plurality of spatial locations within the geological region of interest and a plurality of observed subsidence rates; (Col. 11 line 45 -52, Data input to the inverse model were the thicknesses of each facies tract for each of the correlated units in each well. The inverse model used the data to calculate values of stratigraphic process parameters--such as sea-level change, tectonic movement, sediment supply rates, lithospheric strength, depositional topography-which operated to produce the observed stratigraphy) determining, by a computer simulation using a forward stratigraphic modeler, ~ plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells in the stratigraphic model , (Col. 10 line 39 -48, The inverse model will do a better job of adjusting the values of these parameters to achieve a good match with observations. Second, it is more efficient to invert for sets of parameters. The strategy is to first invert for one set of parameters, e.g., tectonic subsidence, long-term eustasy, initial topography and flexural rigidity. After achieving a good estimate for this set of parameters, we then invert for a new set of parameters, e.g., tectonic subsidence, long-term and short-term eustasy, and sediment supply). determining, by the computer processor, whether the plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells satisfy a stopping criterion using the observed stratigraphic thickness map; (Col.2, line 19-26, a forward model to predict stratigraphy throughout a sedimentary basin based upon the values of input parameters; (2) real stratigraphic data from a relatively small number of locations within the sedimentary basin; and (3) an inversion technique that: (a) determines the difference between the real stratigraphic data and the predictions made by the forward model for the locations at which the real stratigraphic data were obtained). determining, by the computer processor, that the first subset of predicted subsidence rates satisfy the stopping criterion; (Col.5 line 22- 27, The inverse algorithm iteratively compares predicted and observed data, and systematically adjusts values of forward model parameters until differences between predictions and observations are acceptable. In one embodiment, this occurs when the differences are minimized and a best match or a population of equally good matches are achieved). determining, by the computer processor, that the second subset of predicted subsidence rates fail to satisfy the stopping criterion; (Col. 2 line 23- 30 Determines the difference between the real stratigraphic data and the predictions made by the forward model for the locations at which the real stratigraphic data were obtained; and (b) if the difference is unacceptable, modifies the values of the input parameters to the forward model to achieve a closer match between the predicted stratigraphic attributes and the real or observed stratigraphic attributes) updating, iteratively by the computer processor, the stratigraphic model to produce an updated stratigraphic model in response to the second subset of predicted subsidence rates failing to satisfy the stopping criterion, (Col. 2 line 30 -36, The process of using the forward model to predict the stratigraphy throughout the basin and the modification of the values of the input parameters continues until the predictions made by the forward model for the locations associated with the real stratigraphic data match or are reasonably close to the real stratigraphic data… Col.5 line 22-25, The inverse algorithm iteratively compares predicted and observed data, and systematically adjusts values of forward model parameters until differences between predictions and observations are acceptable). wherein the second subset of cells is updated during the iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model based on the second subset of predicted subsidence rates; ( Col. 2 line 22- 36, (a) determines the difference between the real stratigraphic data and the predictions made by the forward model for the locations at which the real stratigraphic data were obtained; and (b) if the difference is unacceptable, modifies the values of the input parameters to the forward model to achieve a closer match between the predicted stratigraphic attributes and the real or observed stratigraphic attributes. The process of using the forward model to predict the stratigraphy throughout the basin and the modification of the values of the input parameters continues until the predictions made by the forward model for the locations associated with the real stratigraphic data match or are reasonably close to the real stratigraphic data). determining, by the computer processor, a presence of hydrocarbons in the geological region of interest using the updated stratigraphic model (Col. 6 line 10 -17, Using the parameter values obtained in Step 4, the forward model is run to predict stratigraphy at locations between and beyond the control points. The predicted stratigraphy can then be used either alone or in confirming geological inferences drawn from other data types to identify locations suitable for petroleum or hydrology exploration or exploitation. Drilling or other excavations may then be undertaken at such locations). Harris and Cross are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, since they focus on stratigraphic model for hydrocarbon/ oil detection. Therefore it would be obvious to try by a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Harris teaching of acquiring information about deposition area, and using a stratigraphic model to predict the deposition environment attributes into Cross’s teaching of analyzing and predicting of subsidence to created updated stratigraphic model that would help to determine the presence of hydrocarbon. The motivation would have been in order to improve analysis of exploration and/or production decisions without the need for additional, expensive testing on the actual basin through iterative data processing to decrease uncertainty (Harris, abstract, [0047] –[0049]). It also helps facilitate the extraction of more oil from the reservoir by using a forward model to obtain a best match of predicted stratigraphic and sedimentologic attributes with observed data and by developing an oil/gas reservoir, geologic and seismic data are used to predict locations for drilling wells (Cross Abstract , Col.1 line 19 -30). The modified model does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells , wherein the first subset of cells corresponding to the first subset of predicted subsidence rates is excluded from an iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model. While Nickel teaches wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells, (Fig.7, and Col. 5 line 45 – 52, The subsidence estimation process generates a value for each sample of said first subset indicating how much said sample must be translated downwards in order to match the samples of the corresponding (sub)trace of said second subset. This process is repeated for all corresponding pairs of (sub)traces being part of the subsets.) wherein the first subset of cells corresponding to the first subset of predicted subsidence rates is excluded from an iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model (Col. 6 line 46- 54, Finally, .alpha. is a parameter controlling the smoothness of the subsidence estimate and .beta. is a parameter controlling the smoothness of the change of the subsidence along direction z. An appropriate choice of these parameters will guarantee a robust estimation result. The above-described iteration scheme will be run for a fixed number of iterations or until the subsidence increment drops below a threshold set by a user of the invention). Nickel is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it focus on Estimating Subsurface Subsidence And Compaction. Therefore it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to integrate Nickel ‘s teaching of estimating subsidence on a subsurface and perform iteratively based on user defined threshold into the modified model in order to exclude the subsidence that drops below the threshold. The motivation would have been estimating of subsidence and compaction will benefit in the field of monitoring hydrocarbon reservoirs with time lapsed measurements and it provides first a more robust/less noise affected compaction estimate and second an estimate with higher resolution in that there is preferably generated a compaction estimate for each volume element making up the subsurface volume instead of being restricted to layers defined by horizons. (Col. 2 – 3, line 42- 50 and line 9 -11). As of claim 4, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Cross also teaches wherein the observed stratigraphic thickness map comprises at least one of a sediment thickness or sediment type (FIG. 4, and Col. 4 line 42 -51, Observations, in the case of stratigraphy, may include, but are not limited to, rock type, texture, fabric, facies tract dimensions, geometry, thickness and symmetry of stratigraphic cycles, inferred paleo bathymetry and topography, and petrophysical properties from the three-dimensional rock volume of interest. Observations or data are not restricted to a particular type of observation or a particular tool for observation and measurement). As of claim 7, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and determining whether the plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells satisfy the stopping criterion is based on a least-squares difference between the plurality of predicted subsidence rates and the plurality of observed subsidence rates (Col.5, line 5- 10 and Col. 9 line 4- 20, Any stratigraphic forward model can be used in inversion if the model outputs synthetic data (predictions) that can be quantitatively compared with real observations …The main job of the inverse model is to minimize X.sup.2. This is weighted least squares. In a perfect world, the inverse model would determine the values of the parameters (a.sub.1, a.sub.2, . . . , a.sub.N) such that modeled data exactly match real data and X.sup.2 would be zero) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARRIS ; Ashley D.( US 20170175492 A1) in the view of Cross; Timothy A. (US 6246963 B1) further in the view of Nickel ; Michael (US 6640190 B2) further in the view of Gee; Timothy William (US 20200300064) . As of claim 2, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach and planning a wellbore trajectory using a well bore planning system based, at least in part, on the presence of hydrocarbons. While Gee teaches planning a wellbore trajectory using a well bore planning system based, at least in part, on the presence of hydrocarbons ( Abstract. the stratigraphic heat maps can be displayed and used to determine the location of the wellbore relative to one or more geological formations, including one or more target formations or within a target formation. Based on the use of the heat maps and the location of the wellbore relative to a target, the drill plan can be adjusted or updated and/or one or more drilling parameters or operations may be adjusted to drill the wellbore, and on para 05, A subject wellbore can be steered into one or multiple geological stratigraphic targets. The directional drilling process usually follows a spatial well plan, in which the position of the desired wellbore trajectory can be given in spatial coordinates). Gee is considered to be analogous the claimed invention because they use stratigraphical map and geographical input parameters to find the locations of wellbore using computer system. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Gee teaching of a directional drilling process usually follows a spatial well plan, using a drilling architecture as it showed on FIG 4 onto the modified model of the presence of hydrocarbon. The motivation would have been to improve drilling operation and decision by creating a more effective drilling plan by processing and analyzing the collected data in regional drilling ( Gee, Para 65). As of claim 15 Harris teaches a logging system comprising a plurality of logging tools, wherein the logging system is configured to acquire a plurality of well logs from a plurality of wells for a geological region of interest ( [0004] also used are coring and well logging, which involve taking samples of the various rocks and fluids encountered as a well is drilled, noting the extent of each particular kind of rock that is encountered during the drilling, and inserting various instruments into the well…[0050] data of the available observed measurements of the actual basin, such as well logs, cores, and/or seismic lines if they are available, the technique of the various embodiments may allow identification of one or a suite of simulation model results that are most consistent with all the data that is available in the field). wherein the logging system is further configured to acquire a plurality of core samples from the plurality of wells for the geological region of interest ([0052], collected seismic data of the actual basin (either or both of 2D and 3D seismic data), collected well log data of the actual basin, collected core data of the actual basin, collected outcrop data of the actual basin, interval thickness data derived for the actual basin, depositional environment data derived for the actual basin, geometry data derived for the actual basin, reservoir property data derived for the actual basin, age data derived for the actual basin, and sedimentation rate derived for the actual basin). wherein the plurality of core samples are physically extracted from the plurality of wells using a coring bit, and ([0004], Other techniques that are also used are coring and well logging, which involve taking samples of the various rocks and fluids encountered as a well is drilled, noting the extent of each particular kind of rock that is encountered during the drilling, and inserting various instruments into the well that measure various rock and fluid properties, such as porosity). wherein the plurality of core samples are used in a laboratory analysis to determine a plurality of geological formation characteristics of the geological region of interest ( [0004], Other techniques that are also used are coring and well logging, which involve taking samples of the various rocks and fluids encountered as a well is drilled, noting the extent of each particular kind of rock that is encountered during the drilling, and inserting various instruments into the well that measure various rock and fluid properties, such as porosity … [0079], The raw actual well log data 332 may contain information to derive interval thickness, reservoir properties, porosity, etc. for the actual basin 202. For the example, the raw actual well log data 332 is evaluated to obtain 334 the porosity 336). obtaining a plurality of seismic images for the geological region of interest: ([0052], Examples of available actual observed test measurements or information derived from the available actual observed test measurements of the actual basin that is to be simulated may include, but are not limited to: collected seismic data of the actual basin (either or both of 2D and 3D seismic data) determining, by a computer processor, an observed stratigraphic thickness map for a stratigraphic model of the geological region of interest using the plurality of well logs, the plurality of seismic images, and the plurality of geological formation characteristics, ([0080] FIG. 4 is a block diagram 400 of the inputs 402 and outputs 406 for an example stratigraphic forward model simulation program 404. Some potential forward model simulation programs 404, include, but are not limited to: DIONISOS, SEDSIM, SEDPAK, and CSDMS (Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System). For the example shown in FIG. 4, the forward model input parameters 402 for the selected stratigraphic forward model simulation program 404, includes sea level 410, tectonic uplift/subsidence rate 430, and sediment/water discharge rat 450. Based on the forward model input parameter 402 values, the stratigraphic forward model simulation program 404, when executed, outputs a simulated (i.e., modeled) basin 406). wherein the drilling system is configured to perform a drilling operation through the geological region of interest based on the presence of hydrocarbons ([0003] To recover petroleum from these reservoirs typically requires drilling through thousands of feet of overlying rock. The drilling of oil and gas wells is typically a very expensive endeavor. Accordingly, before incurring such a large expense, those involved in the exploration and production of oil and gas reservoirs normally seek to obtain an understanding of the basin geology and, in particular, the basin sedimentology and stratigraphy so that an oil/gas well is drilled in a location that is likely to achieve the desired result. In the case of oil and gas exploration, geologic and seismic data are used to predict the location of sedimentary rocks and structures that are likely to contain an oil/gas reservoir. With respect to developing an oil/gas reservoir, geologic and seismic data are used to predict locations for drilling wells that will facilitate the extraction of additional oil from a reservoir). Harris does not explicitly teach a drilling system comprising a drill bit attached to a drillstring, a inverse stratigraphic modeler comprising a computer processor and a memory, wherein the inverse stratigraphic modeler is configured to perform a method comprising: wherein the stratigraphic model comprises a plurality of cells that comprise a first subset of cells and a second subset of cells, and wherein the plurality of cells correspond to a plurality of spatial locations within the geological region of interest and a plurality of observed subsidence rates; determining, by a computer simulation using a forward stratigraphic modeler, a plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells in the stratigraphic model, wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells determining whether the plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells satisfy a stopping criterion using the observed stratigraphic thickness map; determining that the first subset of predicted subsidence rates satisfy the stopping criterion; determining that the second subset of predicted subsidence rates fail to satisfy the stopping criterion; updating, iteratively, the stratigraphic model to produce an updated stratigraphic model in response to the second subset of predicted subsidence rates failing to satisfy the stopping criterion, wherein the first subset of cells corresponding to the first subset of predicted subsidence rates is excluded from an iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model, and wherein the second subset of cells is updated during the iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model based on the second subset of predicted subsidence rates; and determining a presence of hydrocarbons in the geological region of interest using the updated stratigraphic model, and wherein the drilling system is configured to perform a drilling operation through the geological region of interest based on the presence of hydrocarbons. While Cross teaches a inverse stratigraphic modeler comprising a computer processor and a memory, wherein the inverse stratigraphic modeler is configured to perform a method comprising ( Col. 4 line 14- 18, With reference to FIG. 1, a computer system 20 that is suitable for implementing the stratigraphic inverse model includes a processor 22 for executing the stratigraphic inverse model program; a memory 24 for storing the program and data used by the program) wherein the stratigraphic model comprises a plurality of cells that comprise a first subset of cells and a second subset of cells, (Col. 11 line 8-12, The stratigraphic observation data used in the stratigraphic inverse model was comprised of facies tract thickness and position for fifteen correlated stratigraphic units in each of the five wells 40A-40E). wherein the plurality of cells correspond to a plurality of spatial locations within the geological region of interest and a plurality of observed subsidence rates; (Col. 11 line 45 -52, Data input to the inverse model were the thicknesses of each facies tract for each of the correlated units in each well. The inverse model used the data to calculate values of stratigraphic process parameters--such as sea-level change, tectonic movement, sediment supply rates, lithospheric strength, depositional topography-which operated to produce the observed stratigraphy) determining, by a computer simulation using a forward stratigraphic modeler, ~ plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells in the stratigraphic model , (Col. 10 line 39 -48, The inverse model will do a better job of adjusting the values of these parameters to achieve a good match with observations. Second, it is more efficient to invert for sets of parameters. The strategy is to first invert for one set of parameters, e.g., tectonic subsidence, long-term eustasy, initial topography and flexural rigidity. After achieving a good estimate for this set of parameters, we then invert for a new set of parameters, e.g., tectonic subsidence, long-term and short-term eustasy, and sediment supply). determining, by the computer processor, whether the plurality of predicted subsidence rates for the plurality of cells satisfy a stopping criterion using the observed stratigraphic thickness map; (Col.2, line 19-26, a forward model to predict stratigraphy throughout a sedimentary basin based upon the values of input parameters; (2) real stratigraphic data from a relatively small number of locations within the sedimentary basin; and (3) an inversion technique that: (a) determines the difference between the real stratigraphic data and the predictions made by the forward model for the locations at which the real stratigraphic data were obtained). determining, by the computer processor, that the first subset of predicted subsidence rates satisfy the stopping criterion; (Col.5 line 22- 27, The inverse algorithm iteratively compares predicted and observed data, and systematically adjusts values of forward model parameters until differences between predictions and observations are acceptable. In one embodiment, this occurs when the differences are minimized and a best match or a population of equally good matches are achieved). determining, by the computer processor, that the second subset of predicted subsidence rates fail to satisfy the stopping criterion; (Col. 2 line 23- 30 Determines the difference between the real stratigraphic data and the predictions made by the forward model for the locations at which the real stratigraphic data were obtained; and (b) if the difference is unacceptable, modifies the values of the input parameters to the forward model to achieve a closer match between the predicted stratigraphic attributes and the real or observed stratigraphic attributes) updating, iteratively by the computer processor, the stratigraphic model to produce an updated stratigraphic model in response to the second subset of predicted subsidence rates failing to satisfy the stopping criterion, (Col. 2 line 30 -36, The process of using the forward model to predict the stratigraphy throughout the basin and the modification of the values of the input parameters continues until the predictions made by the forward model for the locations associated with the real stratigraphic data match or are reasonably close to the real stratigraphic data… Col.5 line 22-25, The inverse algorithm iteratively compares predicted and observed data, and systematically adjusts values of forward model parameters until differences between predictions and observations are acceptable). wherein the second subset of cells is updated during the iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model based on the second subset of predicted subsidence rates; ( Col. 2 line 22- 36, (a) determines the difference between the real stratigraphic data and the predictions made by the forward model for the locations at which the real stratigraphic data were obtained; and (b) if the difference is unacceptable, modifies the values of the input parameters to the forward model to achieve a closer match between the predicted stratigraphic attributes and the real or observed stratigraphic attributes. The process of using the forward model to predict the stratigraphy throughout the basin and the modification of the values of the input parameters continues until the predictions made by the forward model for the locations associated with the real stratigraphic data match or are reasonably close to the real stratigraphic data). determining, by the computer processor, a presence of hydrocarbons in the geological region of interest using the updated stratigraphic model (Col. 6 line 10 -17, Using the parameter values obtained in Step 4, the forward model is run to predict stratigraphy at locations between and beyond the control points. The predicted stratigraphy can then be used either alone or in confirming geological inferences drawn from other data types to identify locations suitable for petroleum or hydrology exploration or exploitation. Drilling or other excavations may then be undertaken at such locations). Harris and Cross are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, since they focus on stratigraphic model for hydrocarbon/ oil detection. Therefore it would be obvious to try by a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Harris teaching of acquiring information about deposition area, and using a stratigraphic model to predict the deposition environment attributes into Cross’s teaching of analyzing and predicting of subsidence to created updated stratigraphic model that would help to determine the presence of hydrocarbon. The motivation would have been in order to improve analysis of exploration and/or production decisions without the need for additional, expensive testing on the actual basin through iterative data processing to decrease uncertainty (Harris, abstract, [0047] –[0049]). It also helps facilitate the extraction of more oil from the reservoir by using a forward model to obtain a best match of predicted stratigraphic and sedimentologic attributes with observed data and by developing an oil/gas reservoir, geologic and seismic data are used to predict locations for drilling wells (Cross Abstract , Col.1 line 19 -30). The modified model of Harris-Cross does not explicitly teach a drilling system comprising a drill bit attached to a drillstring, wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells , wherein the first subset of cells corresponding to the first subset of predicted subsidence rates is excluded from an iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model. While Nickel teaches a drilling system comprising a drill bit attached to a drillstring; wherein the plurality of predicted subsidence rates comprises a first subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the first subset of cells and a second subset of predicted subsidence rates corresponding to the second subset of cells, (Fig.7, and Col. 5 line 45 – 52, The subsidence estimation process generates a value for each sample of said first subset indicating how much said sample must be translated downwards in order to match the samples of the corresponding (sub)trace of said second subset. This process is repeated for all corresponding pairs of (sub)traces being part of the subsets.) wherein the first subset of cells corresponding to the first subset of predicted subsidence rates is excluded from an iterative update for the updated stratigraphic model (Col. 6 line 46- 54, Finally, .alpha. is a parameter controlling the smoothness of the subsidence estimate and .beta. is a parameter controlling the smoothness of the change of the subsidence along direction z. An appropriate choice of these parameters will guarantee a robust estimation result. The above-described iteration scheme will be run for a fixed number of iterations or until the subsidence increment drops below a threshold set by a user of the invention). Nickel is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it focus on Estimating Subsurface Subsidence And Compaction. Therefore it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to integrate Nickel ‘s teaching of estimating subsidence on a subsurface and perform iteratively based on user defined threshold into the modified model of Harris – Cross in order to exclude the subsidence that drops below the threshold. The motivation would have been estimating of subsidence and compaction will benefit in the field of monitoring hydrocarbon reservoirs with time lapsed measurements and it provides first a more robust/less noise affected compaction estimate and second an estimate with higher resolution in that there is preferably generated a compaction estimate for each volume element making up the subsurface volume instead of being restricted to layers defined by horizons. (Col. 2 – 3, line 42- 50 and line 9 -11). The modified model of Harris- Cross- Nickel does not explicitly teach a drilling system comprising a drill bit attached to a drillstring; While Gee teaches a drilling system comprising a drill bit attached to a drillstring;( [0070] In rig control systems 500 , autodriller 510 may represent an automated rotary drilling system and may be used for controlling rotary drilling. Accordingly, autodriller 510 may enable automate operation of rig controls 520 during rotary drilling, as indicated in the well plan. Bit guidance 512 may represent an automated control system to monitor and control performance and operation drilling bit 148 .) Gee is considered to be analogous the claimed invention because they use stratigraphical map and geographical input parameters to find the locations of wellbore using computer system. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date to have applied Gee teaching of a directional drilling process usually follows a spatial well plan, using a drilling architecture as it showed on FIG 4 onto the modified model of Harris- Cross -Nickel on the presence of hydrocarbon. The motivation would have been to improve drilling operation and decision by creating a more effective drilling plan by processing and analyzing the collected data in regional drilling ( Gee, Para 65). As of claim 17, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 15, and Cross also teaches wherein the observed stratigraphic thickness map comprises at least one of a sediment thickness or sediment type (FIG. 4, and Col. 4 line 42 -51, Observations, in the case of stratigraphy, may include, but are not limited to, rock type, texture, fabric, facies tract dimensions, geometry, thickness and symmetry of stratigraphic cycles, inferred paleo bathymetry and topography, and petrophysical properties from the three-dimensional rock volume of interest. Observations or data are not restricted to a particular type of observation or a particular tool for observation and measurement) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Masson, Roland (US 20050065729, Date Published 2005-03-24), this application is a method relating to the formation by simulation of a reference map of the spatial distribution of the sediment supply, and it use input data including a map of the thickness of the sedimentary layer studied. MONTGOMERY PAUL (WO 2022005475 A1, Date Published 2022-01-06), this application is similar to the claimed invention since it use stratigraphic methods and model for hydrocarbon exploration because they enable a hydrocarbon explorer to more accurately target locations in a petroliferous basin at which hydrocarbon deposits are likely to be found. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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 at 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. /ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 2 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 3 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 4 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 5 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 6 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 7 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 8 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 9 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 10 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 11 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 12 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 13 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 14 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 15 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 16 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 17 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 18 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 19 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 20 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 21 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 22 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 23 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 24 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 25 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 26 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 27 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 28 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 29 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 30 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 31 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 32 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/934,075 Page 34 Art Unit: 2188
Prosecution Insights