DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-12 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to BRAZIL 10 2021 022894 6 filed 11/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/9/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
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.
5. Claims 1-12 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.
i) a. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited, U.S. Patent No. 9665537.
b. This is particularly in the context of patentable claims. As examples, claim 1 recites “modeling the damage zone of faults in fractured reservoirs, characterized in that it characterizes the damage zone (Damage zone characterization); models the strain intensity (Strain intensity modeling); integrates said damage zone and strain intensity modeling with internal modules of an upscale and discrete fracture model generation software.” This sentence includes parentheticals to apparently further define a term, merely recites the result of the modeling of a reservoir, and further includes no active claim steps indicating how or what carries out the alleged claimed invention. At best the claim appears to recite the result of the integration of two pieces of software. As such it is unclear how to ascertain the scope, metes, and bounds of the claim and the claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
c. This further applies to claim 2 which recites “characterized in that the integration requires 2 types of input data, a grid loaded in the software containing faults (in stair-step or pillar grid format) and the parameters of scale correlations and modeling of fractures.” This claim step merely recites what input is required by the modeling software and no active steps of carrying out the integration.
d. Claim 1 recites “it characterizes”, claim 3 recites “it calculates”, claim 4 recites “it generates” are just examples of phrasing that is unclear to what the “it” refers.
e. Further as to Claim 1 the term “upscale” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upscale” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claims are rendered vague and indefinite.
ii) Claim 3 recites “it calculates the fault slip and converts them individually into slip points and transferred to a folder in the input window.” It is unclear how to ascertain the scope, metes, and bounds or what is meant by transferring the calculated values to “a folder in the input window.” As such the claims are rendered vague and indefinite.
ii) Claim 6 recites “characterized in that it uses the mentioned equations (1, 2 and 3) and correlations to estimate the damage zone width and the fracture density.” Specifically as to the recited equations 1, 2, and 3 although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such the claims are omitting the necessary equations and are therefore rendered vague and indefinite.
iii) Claim 9 recites “characterized in that it generates 3 different DFN (Discrete Fracture Network) scenarios in order to work with data uncertainty.” This is an additional example of a narrative claim. Further the claim does not recite how it generates 3 different DFN (Discrete Fracture Network) scenarios. Does the system merely calculate 3 separate times or is there some mechanism to result in 3 different DFN scenarios. The subsequent phrasing of “in order to work with data uncertainty” is merely an intended use and carries no patentable weight. As such the claims are rendered vague and indefinite.
iv) Claim 11 recites “characterized in that, due to the low porosity of fractures, an option is offered to normalize this porosity between a minimum and a maximum defined by the user.” This is an additional example of a narrative claim. Specifically phrasing such as “due to the low porosity” and “an option is offered.” To whom is the option offered. Further the term “low porosity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low porosity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claims are rendered vague and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110077918, hereafter M.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for modeling the damage zone of faults in fractured reservoirs, characterized in that it characterizes the damage zone (Damage zone characterization); ([0088] A method for predicting localized damage and naturally occurring fractures in a subsurface region is provided. This invention uses a hybrid FEM-DEM (i.e. finite-discrete element) framework combined with a fracture risking analysis and fracture initiation and propagation criteria, to model the transition of rock from a state of continuum to discontinuum.) models the strain intensity (Strain intensity modeling); ([0141] Natural fractures propagate within the finite element mesh if coupled with a fracture initiation criteria. The method may include a criterion where fractures initiate in directions normal to the principal stress and propagate perpendicular to most tensile principal stress direction when a limiting tensile stress, tensile strain, critical stress intensity is reached or when a critical strain energy is released (or any combination of these criteria). An exemplary model is shown in FIG. 3 where potential fracture localization is realized (shown at 301a in element 301) as tensile stress increases on an element 300 (as shown by line 300a) until reaching a maximum strength 310 of the element 300 and a discrete fracture and damage 302a is realized perpendicular to the direction of most tensile principal stress as critical energy is released.”) integrates said damage zone and strain intensity modeling with internal modules of an upscale and discrete fracture model generation software. (Abstract, “Natural fractures and damage information is extracted from the modeling results and may be used directly for predictions or used as input into other fracture analysis tools or techniques. The FEM-DEM and risking techniques can be incorporated into a variety of numerical simulation software packages that use a finite-discrete method solver.” See also [0156]… “The computer system also includes an input-output (I/O) adapter 904, a network adapter 905, and an image processing adapter/card 901 to automatically extract fracture characteristics 908 and communicate with external flow simulation programs 909.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the integration requires 2 types of input data, a grid loaded in the software containing faults (in stair-step or pillar grid format) and the parameters of scale correlations and modeling of fractures. ([0089] In another aspect, a method of predicting fractures in a subsurface region is provided. The subsurface region is defined. An earth model that represents the subsurface region is created. The earth model includes a mesh having a plurality of nodes and elements to represent the geology of the subsurface region. The model is pre-analyzed to identify fracture areas of the subsurface region having a potentially high risk of fracture. The pre-analyzing considers outputs from a plurality of fracture prediction tools to identify the fracture areas. Mechanical properties of rock are predefined. Fracture initiation criteria are chosen. A rate of fracture propagation is pre-defined based upon site-specific information regarding the subsurface region. A numerical model is built that represents the earth model. Boundary conditions are assigned to the numerical model. Zones are created within the numerical model that are usable in a continuum-discontinuum method. A mesh control is introduced to reduce mesh alignment and associated fracture path bias. Portions of the mesh that have been identified as fracture areas are re-meshed.” Examiner Notes the claimed grid is read on by the recited mesh.)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, after the grid is loaded, it calculates the fault slip and converts them individually into slip points and transferred to a folder in the input window. ([0154]…The discrete fracture surfaces at a much smaller scale coalesce to form large scale discontinuities and damage 803 along which frictional slip might be realized. Alternatively, damage can emerge from the models as a zone of intense fracturing (fragmentation) with many fracture orientations FIG. 8C illustrates such a situation, where large areas fail simultaneously due to excessive bending and/or stretching of the subsurface layers. Examiner interprets “transferred to a folder in the input window” as the storage of data in a computer. See [0110])
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it uses the mentioned equations (1, 2 and 3) and correlations to estimate the damage zone width ([0152] The disclosed method 10 may be applied to natural fracture and damage prediction due to a variety of geologically plausible scenarios both in two dimensions (2D) and in three dimensions (3D). Aspects disclosed herein may be used to generate a 3D model in a manner similar to the 2D cross-sectional models in FIGS. 6 and 7, but where the region of interest and numerical model are defined in three spatial coordinates. Examiner Note: This reads on the claimed damage zone width. [0150] The deformed region of interest outputted from the FEM analysis at block 112 simulates natural fracturing and/or damage that could have occurred in the subsurface. In block 113 deformation can be compared to observations, for example from well information such as rock samples or subsurface representations, such as images, or compared to fluid flow observations, if available in the region of interest. Alternatively a practitioner conversant in the art of fracture analysis may evaluate results based on experience in other similar regions. The analysis results may be used to identify natural fracture occurrence and damage zone characteristics for a hydrocarbon reservoir.) and the fracture density ([0091] … The failure mechanism may incorporate an advanced constitutive model for intact rock that simulates fracturing under tensile, compressive or a combination of tensile-compressive regimes, and predicts formation of damage when criteria for predicting a fracture are satisfied. Tensile strength of elements may be decreased as damage increases until energy needed to form a discrete fracture is released. Fracture initiation criteria may include at least one of critical stress intensity, minimum energy density, maximum tensile strength, and critical energy release rate.)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it shows both visually and quantitatively the width of the damage zone, as well as the density of fractures and structure crossing zones. (Figure 8A-8B)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it generates 3 different DFN (Discrete Fracture Network) scenarios in order to work with data uncertainty. (Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C. See also [0142])
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it performs scale transfer of fracture properties to the grid with 3 uncertainty scenarios. (Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C. See also [0142])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110119040, hereafter MC.
Regarding Claim 4: M discloses The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it generates surfaces and properties of direction (M. Figure 5, elements showing surface properties and directions)
M does not explicitly recite dip angle and converts into points with slip and dip.
However MC recites dip angle and converts into points with slip and dip. (MC. [0072] Examiner Notes the recitation of dip angles and slip)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the dip angle and slip values of MC with the properties of M since these are standard
geomechanical attributes which can be used to define and visualize reservoir and fracture systems.
Regarding Claim 5: M does not explicitly recite The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it calculates the distance to each fault.
However MC recites characterized in that it calculates the distance to each fault. (MC. [0067] FIG. 8 shows the final correlation matrix and importance summary for the calibration of geometric attributes to the gas production primary variable. These are the attributes left after screening out those that are either statistically unimportant or geologically non-sensible. There are 5 out of 16 geometric attributes that meet this criterion including topography, top elevation (Z), overburden thickness (Thk OB), Water Front thickness (Thk WF), and distance from a fault (FD ALL).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the distance to fault measurement of MC with the system of M since this value would allow for as per MC [0004] To reduce prediction uncertainty, a wide variety of subsurface attributes ranging in scope, scale, and quality can be considered as predictive proxies of the target variable where direct measurements do not exist. Categories and examples of attributes might include geometric (formation thickness, formation depth, fault distance…
8. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160018542, hereafter FM.
Regarding Claim 8: M does not explicitly recite The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it generates accumulated and summed properties of all faults, as well as normalized properties to use as a trend.
However FM recites characterized in that it generates accumulated and summed properties of all faults, as well as normalized properties to use as a trend. (FM. [0121] “Further, the stress, strain, and/or displacement parameters modeled by each of the linearly independent stress models are represented as a sum of contributions from individual faults in the subsurface volume.” [0103] Using this property, one or more measurements at data points (e.g., all measurements) are globally normalized before any computation and the scaling factor is noted (the simulations are also normalized, but the scaling factor is irrelevant).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the summation and normalization of FM with the calculation in M in order to more accurately predict, simulate, calculate, and convey subsurface information particularly with respect to multiple distinct faults which may be set to active or inactive. See FM [0021]
9. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160170067, hereafter H.
Regarding Claim 11: M does not explicitly recite The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, due to the low porosity of fractures, an option is offered to normalize this porosity between a minimum and a maximum defined by the user.
However H recites characterized in that, due to the low porosity of fractures, an option is offered to normalize this porosity between a minimum and a maximum defined by the user. (H. [0040] Therefore, the measured moments contain information about the porosity as well as the shape of the underlying relaxation time distribution. For the purposes of compression applications, it is helpful to normalize the moments such that the maximum and minimum values are well-defined, which facilitates the definition of quantization schemes. One approach is to use the porosity as the normalization constant.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the porosity normalization of H with the system calculation of M in order to allow for both compression applications and quantization schemes leading to the reduction of computational and memory costs. (H. [0040])
10. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M in view of Antonellini, Marco, and Pauline Nella Mollema. "Polygonal deformation bands." Journal of Structural Geology 81 (2015): 45-58, hereafter A.
Regarding Claim 12: M does not explicitly recite The method according to claim 1, characterized in that it classifies faults in domains based on the average direction thereof; it runs evaluation analysis of each fault and lists data of maximum length, maximum slip, average dip angle and direction and generates the lineament that corresponds to this maximum fault length.
However A recites characterized in that it classifies faults in domains based on the average direction thereof; (A. Page 50, The shear deformation bands belonging to the NW-SE-oriented fault system.) it runs evaluation analysis of each fault and lists data of maximum length, (Page 52, Section 5.1, “The polygonal faults studied are composed of short segments of shear deformation bands with a maximum length of a few tens of centimeters.”) maximum slip, (Page 53, Section 5.2, “1) Stage 1 (Fig. 11a): the south-dipping, normal shear deformation bands(bluecolor) form and propagate in an eastward direction. These structures have the largest slip magnitudes observed (1e2 cm).”) average dip angle (Page 48, bottom left, “The total approximate heave along an edge of a polygon was computed by multiplying the slip magnitude on each deformation band by the cosine of the average dip angle of the deformation bands and then by the number of deformation bands measured along each of the transects.”) and direction and generates the lineament that corresponds to this maximum fault length. (Page 52, Section 5.1, “The polygonal faults studied are composed of short segments of shear deformation bands with a maximum length of a few tens of centimeters.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the various measurements recited in A for the system in M as they represent the geometry of polygonal faults and are used to evaluate the geometry of faults. (A. Abstract)
Conclusion
11. All Claims are rejected.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent No. 9665537
ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200301043
iii) Lavecchia, Giusy, et al. "From surface geology to aftershock analysis: Constraints on the geometry of the L’Aquila 2009 seismogenic fault system." Italian Journal of Geosciences 131.3 (2012): 330-347.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186