DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 shows an “OBJ solver” as element 120 which is described in the specification as “OBL solver” for element 120. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0051 of the specification, the sentence “In various embodiments, the simulation parameters include various” is not a complete sentence. There appears to have been an omission of the remaining details of this portion of the specification.
In paragraph 0038 of the specification, “OBJ solver” is recited instead of the “OBL solver” introduced previously for the same element. Naming of the same element should be consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity” should read “wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, and a reference pressure for a given porosity.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 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.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are incomplete and lacking the definitions of equations and formulas that would distinctly claim the subject matter in which the inventor regards as the invention. The scope of the invention is not ascertainable based on what is contained within these claims. It appears as though the linear equations described in the claims may entail formulas 8-12 of the specification, as per specification ¶56 which states “The nonlinear equations may include those set forth in Formulas 8-12 described herein.”. It further appears as though the formulas claimed may entail formulas 14-22 of the specification, as per specification ¶57 which states “In various embodiments, these values and derivatives are determined according to Formulas 14-22 described herein.”. However, the inclusion of any or all of the equations cannot be assumed by the examiner.
Examiner note: Per MPEP 2173.06, it would not be proper to reject such indefinite claims because a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim exists. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of the terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Accordingly, claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are not being evaluated with regard to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
solving an initial iteration of nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail solving a set of nonlinear equations characterizing the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir site based on parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites solving nonlinear equations, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations.
estimating initial operator values and initial derivatives of the initial operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment of operator values and an evaluation of derivatives of the operator values and further making an evaluation of the operator values and derivatives with regard for a convergence criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the estimation of a derivative, the claim further includes the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations.
producing an initial output based on the initial operator values; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the initial operator values so as to derive a judgement value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, the mental evaluation may be output to a piece of paper using a pen. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
solving a final iteration of the nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters and the initial output; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail solving a set of nonlinear equations characterizing the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir site based on parameter values and the initial output value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites solving nonlinear equations, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations.
estimating final operator values and final derivatives of the final operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment of operator values and an evaluation of derivatives of the operator values and further making an evaluation of the operator values and derivatives with regard for a convergence criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the estimation of a derivative, the claim further includes the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations.
loading oil and gas survey results into cells of a mesh representing the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the final output. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail assigning results to cells of a mesh that represent a simulated oil and gas reservoir based on an evaluation of the final output. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can derive the survey result values based on the evaluation and write such values into a discretized representation of the reservoir site on a piece of paper. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, and when read in light of the specification, the limitation encompasses receiving data over a network or retrieving information from memory. Both of these computer functions have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional element viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-13 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
solving an initial iteration of nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail solving a set of nonlinear equations characterizing the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir site based on parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites solving nonlinear equations, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations.
estimating initial operator values and initial derivatives of the initial operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment of operator values and an evaluation of derivatives of the operator values and further making an evaluation of the operator values and derivatives with regard for a convergence criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the estimation of a derivative, the claim further includes the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations.
producing an initial output based on the initial operator values; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the initial operator values so as to derive a judgement value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, the mental evaluation may be output to a piece of paper using a pen. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
solving a final iteration of the nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters and the initial output; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail solving a set of nonlinear equations characterizing the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir site based on parameter values and the initial output value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites solving nonlinear equations, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations.
estimating final operator values and final derivatives of the final operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment of operator values and an evaluation of derivatives of the operator values and further making an evaluation of the operator values and derivatives with regard for a convergence criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the estimation of a derivative, the claim further includes the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations.
loading oil and gas survey results into cells of a mesh representing the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the final output. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail assigning results to cells of a mesh that represent a simulated oil and gas reservoir based on an evaluation of the final output. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can derive the survey result values based on the evaluation and write such values into a discretized representation of the reservoir site on a piece of paper. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a processor; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
a memory including instructions that when executed by the processor perform operations including:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, and when read in light of the specification, the limitation encompasses receiving data over a network or retrieving information from memory. Both of these computer functions have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
solving an initial iteration of nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail solving a set of nonlinear equations characterizing the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir site based on parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites solving nonlinear equations, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations.
estimating initial operator values and initial derivatives of the initial operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment of operator values and an evaluation of derivatives of the operator values and further making an evaluation of the operator values and derivatives with regard for a convergence criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the estimation of a derivative, the claim further includes the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations.
producing an initial output based on the initial operator values; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the initial operator values so as to derive a judgement value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, the mental evaluation may be output to a piece of paper using a pen. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
solving a final iteration of the nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters and the initial output; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail solving a set of nonlinear equations characterizing the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir site based on parameter values and the initial output value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites solving nonlinear equations, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations.
estimating final operator values and final derivatives of the final operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment of operator values and an evaluation of derivatives of the operator values and further making an evaluation of the operator values and derivatives with regard for a convergence criteria. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the estimation of a derivative, the claim further includes the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations.
loading oil and gas survey results into cells of a mesh representing the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the final output. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail assigning results to cells of a mesh that represent a simulated oil and gas reservoir based on an evaluation of the final output. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human being can derive the survey result values based on the evaluation and write such values into a discretized representation of the reservoir site on a piece of paper. Though the claim recites the utilization of a simulation which is understood to be a simulation which would be performed on a computer, the courts do not distinguish those mental processes which can be performed entirely in the human mind or are performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, and when read in light of the specification, the limitation encompasses receiving data over a network or retrieving information from memory. Both of these computer functions have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional element viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein a number of iterations between the initial iteration and the final iteration is operator-defined, which can reasonably be read to entail an operator making a judgement so as to define the number of iterations uses. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the nonlinear equations include which can reasonably be read to entail the recitation of nonlinear equations, which are mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation where the initial operator values, final operator values, initial derivatives, and final derivatives are estimated according to formulas, which can reasonably be read to entail the recitation of making estimations using formulas, which are understood to be mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the oil and gas survey results include a permeability, a porosity, a pressure, and a water saturation for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1 Claim 7 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein the simulation parameters for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site include: reservoir porosity; phase density of oil; phase density of gas; phase density of water; saturation of oil; saturation of gas; saturation of water; velocity of oil; velocity of gas; velocity of water; a formation volume factor; gas solubility; a permeability tensor; viscosity; and pressure. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation wherein a number of iterations between the initial iteration and the final iteration is operator-defined, which can reasonably be read to entail an operator making a judgement so as to define the number of iterations uses. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein the nonlinear equations include which can reasonably be read to entail the recitation of nonlinear equations, which are mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation where the initial operator values, final operator values, initial derivatives, and final derivatives are estimated according to formulas, which can reasonably be read to entail the recitation of making estimations using formulas, which are understood to be mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein the oil and gas survey results include a permeability, a porosity, a pressure, and a water saturation for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1 Claim 14 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation wherein the simulation parameters for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site include: reservoir porosity; phase density of oil; phase density of gas; phase density of water; saturation of oil; saturation of gas; saturation of water; velocity of oil; velocity of gas; velocity of water; a formation volume factor; gas solubility; a permeability tensor; viscosity; and pressure. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation wherein a number of iterations between the initial iteration and the final iteration is operator-defined, which can reasonably be read to entail an operator making a judgement so as to define the number of iterations uses. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the nonlinear equations include which can reasonably be read to entail the recitation of nonlinear equations, which are mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation where the initial operator values, final operator values, initial derivatives, and final derivatives are estimated according to formulas, which can reasonably be read to entail the recitation of making estimations using formulas, which are understood to be mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount so significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation wherein the oil and gas survey results include a permeability, a porosity, a pressure, and a water saturation for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Li, L, Abushaikhaa, A., “An Advanced Parallel Framework for Reservoir Simulation with Mimetic Finite Difference Discretization and Operator-based Linearization”, September 17 2020, ECMOR XVII, Vol. 2020, No. 1, pp. 1-12). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers), hereinafter referred to as Li, in view of Lee (US 20180329112 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) A method, comprising: A framework is described for reservoir simulations ((Li, Page 2, ¶4) "In this work, we couple the MFD and OBL methods into an advanced parallel framework for reservoir simulation"). The framework is applied to test cases which implement the framework ((Li, Page 5, ¶1) "In this section, we test two field cases to further demonstrate the performance of the framework.")
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site; Parameters are defined for the simulation of a reservoir and the simulation is run based on the parameters ((Li, Page 5, ¶2) "The reservoir size is 5×1×1 m, the porosity of the incompressible rock is 0.2, the initial saturation of oil is 1, the viscosities of oil and water are 3 and 1 respectively, the water is injected from the left side with constant rate 0.001 m3/day, the same production rate is imposed on the right side, the water relative permeability is defined as krw = Sw 2, the oil relative permeability is defined kro = So 2, the simulation time is 300 days, the domain is meshed with 1D structured grid with resolution equalling 10000. We run the simulation with different OBL resolutions (the number of nodes in each parameter space).")
solving an initial iteration of nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters; A nonlinear system is solved as part of a scheme that employs the Newton-Raphson method, which is an iterative approach.((Li, Page 4, ¶1) "In this work, we apply the fully implicit scheme, which is unconditionally stable, to solve the nonlinear system. The scheme can be written as follow using the Newton-Raphson method."); ((Li, Page 6, ¶1) "It indicates that the coarsening of OBL resolution could improve the nonlinear solver by reducing the number of newton iterations."). The nonlinear system is characterized by a system of nonlinear equations that govern the behavior of the reservoir for the simulation (Li, Page 2, See equations 1-3); (Li, Page 4, See equations 12-15)
estimating initial operator values and initial derivatives of the initial operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site [[until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives;]] Operator-based linearization is employed to estimate operators and derivatives of operators ((Li, Page 4, ¶2) "To deal with the challenges related to the estimation of residual vector and Jacobian matrix, we apply state-of-the-art operator-based linearization (OBL) approach. Using OBL, we re-write the discretized Equations (12) to (14) in operator forms:"); ((Li, Page 4, ¶3) "In this approach, the terms, which are dependent on rock and fluid properties but are independent of spatial distributed properties, are reduced into simple operators. Then, we uniformly discretize the operators in the space of physical status. By evaluating the operator values on the nodes, the values and derivatives of operators, required for assembly of residual vector and Jacobian matrix, can be estimated through a multi-linear interpolation.")
producing an initial output based on the initial operator values; Operator values and their derivatives are determined as part of the framework ((Li, Page 10, ¶2) "The state-of-the-art operator based linearization approach, which transforms the governing equations into an operator form, is implemented in the framework. In OBL, the complicated computations related to rock and fluid properties are only performed on the vertices of hypercubes which discretizes the parametric space uniformly. Then the operator values and their derivatives, required for the assembly of the Jacobian matrix and residual vector, are determined by multi-linear interpolation.")
solving a final iteration of the nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters and the initial output; The scheme employs the Newton-Raphson method, as stated previously which is an iterative approach((Li, Page 4, ¶1) "In this work, we apply the fully implicit scheme, which is unconditionally stable, to solve the nonlinear system. The scheme can be written as follow using the Newton-Raphson method."); ((Li, Page 6, ¶1) "It indicates that the coarsening of OBL resolution could improve the nonlinear solver by reducing the number of newton iterations."). The next iteration of the Newton-Raphson method relies on the previous iteration’s output ((Li, Page 4, ¶1) "In this work, we apply the fully implicit scheme, which is unconditionally stable, to solve the nonlinear system. The scheme can be written as follow using the Newton-Raphson method.
PNG
media_image1.png
46
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"). The nonlinear system is characterized by a system of nonlinear equations that govern the behavior of the reservoir for the simulation (Li, Page 2, See equations 1-3); (Li, Page 4, See equations 12-15)
estimating final operator values and final derivatives of the final operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site [[until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and]] Operator-based linearization is employed to estimate operators and derivatives of operators ((Li, Page 4, ¶2) "To deal with the challenges related to the estimation of residual vector and Jacobian matrix, we apply state-of-the-art operator-based linearization (OBL) approach. Using OBL, we re-write the discretized Equations (12) to (14) in operator forms:"); ((Li, Page 4, ¶3) "In this approach, the terms, which are dependent on rock and fluid properties but are independent of spatial distributed properties, are reduced into simple operators. Then, we uniformly discretize the operators in the space of physical status. By evaluating the operator values on the nodes, the values and derivatives of operators, required for assembly of residual vector and Jacobian matrix, can be estimated through a multi-linear interpolation.")
loading oil and gas survey results into cells of a mesh representing the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the final output. A mesh representing a reservoir is established ((Li, Page 8, ¶1) "Figure 7a, the blue, red, and yellow domains indicate top reservoir, bottom reservoir, and fault respectively. The initial pressure is 200 bars, the porosity, permeability, and initial distribution of components in each domain are shown in Table 1. The domain is meshed by an unstructured grid shown in Figure 7b."). Result values are applied into the mesh representation ((Li, Page 9, ¶1) " The pressure, oil saturation, water saturation, and velocity for MFD and TPFA schemes are shown in Figure 8."); See Figure 8
PNG
media_image2.png
749
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
266
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li does not explicitly disclose iterating the estimations until values meet convergence criteria; however Li in view of Lee discloses performing iterations and evaluating results with regard to convergence criteria until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives; ((Lee, ¶64-65) "As governing equations tend to be non-linear (e.g., compositional, black oil, etc.), a Newton-Raphson type of technique may be implemented, which includes determining derivatives, iterations, etc. For example, a solution may be found by iterating according to the Newton-Raphson scheme where such iterations may be referred to as non-linear iterations, Newton iterations or outer iterations. Where one or more error criteria are fulfilled, the solution procedure has converged, and a converged solution has been found. Thus, within a Newton iteration, a linear problem is solved by performing a number of linear iterations, which may be referred to as inner iterations. As an example, a solution scheme may be represented by the following pseudo-algorithm: TABLE-US-00001 // Pseudo-algorithm for Newton-Raphson for systems initialize(v); do { //Non-linear iterations formulate_non_linear_system(v); make_total_differential(v); do { // Linear iterations: update_linear_system_variables(v); } while((linear_system_has_not_converged(v)); update_non_linear_system_after_linear_convergence(v); } while((non_linear_system_has_not_converged(v)) ")
until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and ((Lee, ¶64-65) "As governing equations tend to be non-linear (e.g., compositional, black oil, etc.), a Newton-Raphson type of technique may be implemented, which includes determining derivatives, iterations, etc. For example, a solution may be found by iterating according to the Newton-Raphson scheme where such iterations may be referred to as non-linear iterations, Newton iterations or outer iterations. Where one or more error criteria are fulfilled, the solution procedure has converged, and a converged solution has been found. Thus, within a Newton iteration, a linear problem is solved by performing a number of linear iterations, which may be referred to as inner iterations. As an example, a solution scheme may be represented by the following pseudo-algorithm: TABLE-US-00001 // Pseudo-algorithm for Newton-Raphson for systems initialize(v); do { //Non-linear iterations formulate_non_linear_system(v); make_total_differential(v); do { // Linear iterations: update_linear_system_variables(v); } while((linear_system_has_not_converged(v)); update_non_linear_system_after_linear_convergence(v); } while((non_linear_system_has_not_converged(v)) ")
Li analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of improving reservoir simulation accuracies. Lee is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of reservoir simulation techniques. Li discloses estimating operator values and derivative values as part of an OBL approach in a framework for reservoir simulations. Li describes coupling the OBL approach with the MFD approach which employs the Newton-Raphson method as part of the framework. Li employs the framework in test cases but does not particularly disclose details of how the framework is implemented such that it explicitly recites the evaluation of solutions with regard to a convergence criteria. Lee discloses a solution scheme for a reservoir simulation which employs the Newton-Raphson method and further describes the simulation method explicitly in terms of iteratively evaluating solutions until convergence. By employing the framework disclosed by Li into the simulation methodology disclosed by Lee, one having skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, because Li suggests that the OLB method is coupled with the MFD method comprising the Newton-Raphson approach and Lee explicitly describes employing the Newton-Raphson technique as part of a simulation methodology and explicitly characterizes the method to include convergence criteria for a simulation, the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination discloses The method of claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Li discloses wherein a number of iterations between the initial iteration and the final iteration is operator-defined. The number of Newton iterations by which the framework operates is suggested to be properly selected ((Li, Page 6, ¶1) "It indicates that the coarsening of OBL resolution could improve the nonlinear solver by reducing the number of newton iterations. Therefore, a proper selection of OBL resolution could help a lot to improve the efficiency of a reservoir simulation.")
Regarding claim 6, the proposed combination discloses The method of claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Li discloses wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity. ((Li, Page 8, ¶1) "The initial pressure is 200 bars, the porosity, permeability, and initial distribution of components in each domain are shown in Table 1. The domain is meshed by an unstructured grid shown in Figure 7b. To introduce a full tensor permeability, we rotate the permeability in the fault domain following the rules in Equation 27. The relative permeabilities and properties are again taken from the SPE9 test case. We set two wells: the production well is located at the top of the middle of the top reservoir with constant rate equalling 500 t/day, the injection well is located in the middle of the bottom reservoir with bottom hole pressure equalling 150 bars."); ((Li, Page 6, ¶3) "The initial pressure is 300 bars, the mass fractions of gas, oil, and water components are 0.227, 0.588, and 0.185."); See also Table 1 showing the mass fractions of gas, oil, and water
PNG
media_image4.png
132
881
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the proposed combination discloses The method of claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Li discloses wherein the simulation parameters for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site include:
reservoir porosity;
phase density of oil;
phase density of gas;
phase density of water;
saturation of oil;
saturation of gas;
saturation of water;
velocity of oil;
velocity of gas;
velocity of water;
a formation volume factor;
gas solubility;
a permeability tensor;
viscosity; and
pressure. All the parameters are included as parameters that govern the simulation behavior for the reservoir ((Li, Page 3, ¶6- Page 4, ¶1) "In this section, we describe the governing equations, mimetic finite difference discretization scheme, operator-based linearization, and the implementation of massively parallel computation. Governing equations In this work, we apply the black oil model to describe the physical process underground, as well as the followed description of discretization and linearization.
PNG
media_image5.png
126
826
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where t is the time; ϕ is the reservoir porosity; ρ is the phase density; S is the saturation; B is the formation volume factor; R is the gas solubility; subscripts g, o, and w represent gas, oil, and water; subscript st represents the standard condition; q is the phase rate per unit volume; u is the velocity
PNG
media_image6.png
43
840
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where K is the permeability tensor; krα is the relative permeability of phase α; μ is the viscosity; P is the pressure.")
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) [[A system, comprising:]]
[[a processor; and]]
[[a memory including instructions that when executed by the processor perform operations including:]]
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site;
solving an initial iteration of nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters;
estimating initial operator values and initial derivatives of the initial operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site [[until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives;]]
producing an initial output based on the initial operator values;
solving a final iteration of the nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters and the initial output;
estimating final operator values and final derivatives of the final operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site [[until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and]]
loading oil and gas survey results into cells of a mesh representing the simulated
oil and gas reservoir site based on the final output.
Li is not relied upon to disclose; however Lee discloses A system, comprising: ((Lee, ¶42) "As an example, a system may be used to perform one or more workflows. A workflow may be a process that includes a number of worksteps. A workstep may operate on data, for example, to create new data, to update existing data, etc. As an example, a workflow may operate on one or more inputs and create one or more results, for example, based on one or more algorithms. As an example, a system may include a workflow editor for creation, editing, executing, etc. of a workflow.")
a processor; and ((Lee, ¶163) "As an example, multiphase flow may include one or more of two-phase flow, three-phase flow, etc. Three-phase flow in a reservoir model may be simulated via a simulator, for example, a computing system that includes one or more processors, memory operatively coupled to at least one of the processors and instruction stored in the memory that may be executable by at least one of the processors to simulate physical phenomena that can occur in a reservoir, for example, with and/or without intervention (e.g., injection, production, heating, etc.). ")
a memory including instructions that when executed by the processor perform operations including: ((Lee, ¶163) "As an example, multiphase flow may include one or more of two-phase flow, three-phase flow, etc. Three-phase flow in a reservoir model may be simulated via a simulator, for example, a computing system that includes one or more processors, memory operatively coupled to at least one of the processors and instruction stored in the memory that may be executable by at least one of the processors to simulate physical phenomena that can occur in a reservoir, for example, with and/or without intervention (e.g., injection, production, heating, etc.). ")
until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives; ((Lee, ¶64-65) "As governing equations tend to be non-linear (e.g., compositional, black oil, etc.), a Newton-Raphson type of technique may be implemented, which includes determining derivatives, iterations, etc. For example, a solution may be found by iterating according to the Newton-Raphson scheme where such iterations may be referred to as non-linear iterations, Newton iterations or outer iterations. Where one or more error criteria are fulfilled, the solution procedure has converged, and a converged solution has been found. Thus, within a Newton iteration, a linear problem is solved by performing a number of linear iterations, which may be referred to as inner iterations. As an example, a solution scheme may be represented by the following pseudo-algorithm: TABLE-US-00001 // Pseudo-algorithm for Newton-Raphson for systems initialize(v); do { //Non-linear iterations formulate_non_linear_system(v); make_total_differential(v); do { // Linear iterations: update_linear_system_variables(v); } while((linear_system_has_not_converged(v)); update_non_linear_system_after_linear_convergence(v); } while((non_linear_system_has_not_converged(v)) ")
until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and((Lee, ¶64-65) "As governing equations tend to be non-linear (e.g., compositional, black oil, etc.), a Newton-Raphson type of technique may be implemented, which includes determining derivatives, iterations, etc. For example, a solution may be found by iterating according to the Newton-Raphson scheme where such iterations may be referred to as non-linear iterations, Newton iterations or outer iterations. Where one or more error criteria are fulfilled, the solution procedure has converged, and a converged solution has been found. Thus, within a Newton iteration, a linear problem is solved by performing a number of linear iterations, which may be referred to as inner iterations. As an example, a solution scheme may be represented by the following pseudo-algorithm: TABLE-US-00001 // Pseudo-algorithm for Newton-Raphson for systems initialize(v); do { //Non-linear iterations formulate_non_linear_system(v); make_total_differential(v); do { // Linear iterations: update_linear_system_variables(v); } while((linear_system_has_not_converged(v)); update_non_linear_system_after_linear_convergence(v); } while((non_linear_system_has_not_converged(v)) ")
Li analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of improving reservoir simulation accuracies. Lee is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of reservoir simulation techniques. Li discloses estimating operator values and derivative values as part of an OBL approach in a framework for reservoir simulations. Li describes coupling the OBL approach with the MFD approach which employs the Newton-Raphson method as part of the framework. Li employs the framework in test cases but does not particularly disclose details of how the framework is implemented such that it explicitly recites the evaluation of solutions with regard to a convergence criteria. Nor does Li particularly mention a system by which the framework is performed by. Lee discloses a solution scheme for a reservoir simulation which employs the Newton-Raphson method and further describes the simulation method explicitly in terms of iteratively evaluating solutions until convergence. By employing the framework disclosed by Li into the simulation methodology disclosed by Lee and by the system disclosed by Lee, one having skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, because Li suggests that the OLB method is coupled with the MFD method comprising the Newton-Raphson approach and Lee explicitly describes employing the Newton-Raphson technique as part of a simulation methodology and explicitly characterizes the method to include convergence criteria for a simulation, the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations The system of claim 8, wherein a number of iterations between the initial iteration and the final iteration is operator-defined. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 2 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations The system of claim 8, wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 5 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations The system of claim 8, wherein the simulation parameters for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site include:
reservoir porosity;
phase density of oil;
phase density of gas;
phase density of water;
saturation of oil;
saturation of gas;
saturation of water;
velocity of oil;
velocity of gas;
velocity of water;
a formation volume factor;
gas solubility;
a permeability tensor;
viscosity; and
pressure. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 7 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) [[A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a processor perform operations comprising:]]
reading in simulation parameters for a simulated oil and gas reservoir site;
solving an initial iteration of nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters;
estimating initial operator values and initial derivatives of the initial operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site [[until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives;]]
producing an initial output based on the initial operator values;
solving a final iteration of the nonlinear equations for simulating the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the simulation parameters and the initial output;
estimating final operator values and final derivatives of the final operator values for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site [[until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and]]
loading oil and gas survey results into cells of a mesh representing the simulated oil and gas reservoir site based on the final output.
Li does not disclose; however Lee discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a processor perform operations comprising: ((Lee, ¶158) "The method 1410 is shown in FIG. 14 in association with various computer-readable media (CRM) blocks 1421, 1421 and 1431 as well as 1433 and 1435. Such blocks generally include instructions suitable for execution by one or more processors (or cores) to instruct a computing device or system to perform one or more actions. While various blocks are shown, a single medium may be configured with instructions to allow for, at least in part, performance of various actions of the method 1410. As an example, a computer-readable medium (CRM) may be a computer-readable storage medium that is non-transitory and that is not a carrier wave.")
until the initial operator values meet a convergence criteria with the initial derivatives; ((Lee, ¶64-65) "As governing equations tend to be non-linear (e.g., compositional, black oil, etc.), a Newton-Raphson type of technique may be implemented, which includes determining derivatives, iterations, etc. For example, a solution may be found by iterating according to the Newton-Raphson scheme where such iterations may be referred to as non-linear iterations, Newton iterations or outer iterations. Where one or more error criteria are fulfilled, the solution procedure has converged, and a converged solution has been found. Thus, within a Newton iteration, a linear problem is solved by performing a number of linear iterations, which may be referred to as inner iterations. As an example, a solution scheme may be represented by the following pseudo-algorithm: TABLE-US-00001 // Pseudo-algorithm for Newton-Raphson for systems initialize(v); do { //Non-linear iterations formulate_non_linear_system(v); make_total_differential(v); do { // Linear iterations: update_linear_system_variables(v); } while((linear_system_has_not_converged(v)); update_non_linear_system_after_linear_convergence(v); } while((non_linear_system_has_not_converged(v)) ")
until the final operator values meet the convergence criteria with the final derivatives; and ((Lee, ¶64-65) "As governing equations tend to be non-linear (e.g., compositional, black oil, etc.), a Newton-Raphson type of technique may be implemented, which includes determining derivatives, iterations, etc. For example, a solution may be found by iterating according to the Newton-Raphson scheme where such iterations may be referred to as non-linear iterations, Newton iterations or outer iterations. Where one or more error criteria are fulfilled, the solution procedure has converged, and a converged solution has been found. Thus, within a Newton iteration, a linear problem is solved by performing a number of linear iterations, which may be referred to as inner iterations. As an example, a solution scheme may be represented by the following pseudo-algorithm: TABLE-US-00001 // Pseudo-algorithm for Newton-Raphson for systems initialize(v); do { //Non-linear iterations formulate_non_linear_system(v); make_total_differential(v); do { // Linear iterations: update_linear_system_variables(v); } while((linear_system_has_not_converged(v)); update_non_linear_system_after_linear_convergence(v); } while((non_linear_system_has_not_converged(v)) ")
Li analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of improving reservoir simulation accuracies. Lee is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of reservoir simulation techniques. Li discloses estimating operator values and derivative values as part of an OBL approach in a framework for reservoir simulations. Li describes coupling the OBL approach with the MFD approach which employs the Newton-Raphson method as part of the framework. Li employs the framework in test cases but does not particularly disclose details of how the framework is implemented such that it explicitly recites the evaluation of solutions with regard to a convergence criteria. Nor does Li particularly mention a computer readable medium that includes instructions that when executed by a processor perform the functions of the framework. Lee discloses a solution scheme for a reservoir simulation which employs the Newton-Raphson method and further describes the simulation method explicitly in terms of iteratively evaluating solutions until convergence. By employing the framework disclosed by Li into the simulation methodology disclosed by Lee and implementing the framework in a nontransitory computer readable medium as disclosed by Lee, one having skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, because Li suggests that the OLB method is coupled with the MFD method comprising the Newton-Raphson approach and Lee explicitly describes employing the Newton-Raphson technique as part of a simulation methodology and explicitly characterizes the method to include convergence criteria for a simulation, the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein a number of iterations between the initial iteration and the final iteration is operator-defined. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 2 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the simulation parameters include the mass fraction of gas, the mass fraction of oil, a reference pressure for a given porosity. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 6 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lee as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively above, and further in view of SINTEF (SINTEF, “MRST- MATLAB Reservoir Simulation Toolbox”, Available Online Nov 2017, www.sintef.no/projectweb/mrst/modules/ad-core/spe9), hereinafter referred to as SINTEF.
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination discloses The method of claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination further in view of Li discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein the oil and gas survey results include [[a permeability, a porosity,]] a pressure, and a water saturation for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site. Pressure and water saturation are output as values within the mesh of the reservoir model ((Li, Page 9, ¶1) " The pressure, oil saturation, water saturation, and velocity for MFD and TPFA schemes are shown in Figure 8.")
PNG
media_image2.png
749
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The proposed combination in further view of Li does not explicitly disclose loading the survey results that comprise permeability or porosity in the cells of a mesh. However, the proposed combination in view of SINTEF discloses outputting permeability and porosity within the cells of a grid. See Figures 1 and 2.
PNG
media_image7.png
555
913
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
486
900
media_image8.png
Greyscale
SINTEF is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of reservoir simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the proposed combination with the teachings of SINTEF because combining known elements according to known methods would yield predictable results. Li discloses the visualization of simulation results within a meshed representation and particularly provides examples of elements that can be displayed such as water saturation, velocity, and pressure. SINTEF provides a reservoir simulation toolbox that can be used for reservoir modeling and simulation applications and demonstrates that other parameters may be visualized for a reservoir simulation in a similar manner and explicitly points out that permeability and porosity can be represented visually in this way. By incorporating additional visualizations of reservoir simulation behavior as given in examples by SINTEF into the proposed combination, one having skill in the art would expect the predictable results of being able to visualize the behavior of the simulation model more comprehensively. Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations The system of claim 8, wherein the oil and gas survey results include a permeability, a porosity, a pressure, and a water saturation for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 5 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the oil and gas survey results include a permeability, a porosity, a pressure, and a water saturation for the simulated oil and gas reservoir site. are substantially similar to those recited in claim 5 and therefore the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khait et al (Khait, M., and Voskov, D., “Operator-based linearization for general purpose reservoir simulation”, Aug 2017, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Volume 157, pp. 990-998) discloses derivation of relevant mathematics pretraining to the OBL mathematics described in the present application.
Kozlova et al (US 11474858 B2) discloses a parallel multiscale reservoir simulation with a message-passing system for the parallel computing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187