DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-12 have been presented for examination.
Claims 6 and 9 have been cancelled.
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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments, the previously presented 112 rejections are WITHDRAWN.
ii) Applicants argue that M does not disclose “modeling damage zone thickness and fracture intensity.” However, M discloses in at least “[0149] Once it is determined which parts of the geologic region to re-mesh, deformation and fracturing analysis may be carried out using an explicit FEM-DEM solver at block 112. FIGS. 7A and 7B show the deformation and fracture patterns as predicted by FEM analysis block 112. The numerical model captures the main features of deformation and might also contain information regarding fracture intensity, connectivity, length and spacing. FIG. 7B is an exemplary illustration of results from a FEM-DEM analysis. The numerical results (graphically expressed in the Figures) replicate a variety of fracture patterns and different fracturing events: layer confined fractures (708), fractures that cut through more than one layer (706), and fractures originating at layer interfaces and terminating within a single mechanical unit (707) are exemplary fracture patterns that emerge from the models. Sensitivity analysis may be performed as part of the FEM analysis by varying one or more input parameters previously defined, such as layer thickness, confining pressure, interface friction, and/or tensile strength, to see the effect on the resulting natural fracture patterns.” The Examiner notes the recitation of fracture analysis including fracture intensity as well as sensitivity analysis using layer thickness as a value. Therefore, the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) Applicants argue that M does not disclose “modeling the damage zone for at least three damage scenarios, wherein a first thickness and/or first fracture intensity of the damage zone in a first damage scenario is greater than a second thickness and/or second fracture intensity of the damage zone in a second damage scenario, and the second thickness and/or second fracture intensity of the damage zone is greater than a third thickness and/or third fracture intensity of the damage zone in a third damage scenario” However the Examiner disagrees with Applicants interpretation of cited Figures 4A-4C. As seen in at least “[0142] As soon as a pre-defined failure criteria is satisfied, a discrete fracture can be inserted into the finite element mesh, passing through the associated nodal point and in the given direction. Fracturing can occur at a single nodal point, or a series of points can fail simultaneously during the same time increment. Realization of discrete fractures within a finite element mesh requires splitting the elements as shown in FIG. 4A at 401 (also described in Cottrell et al. (2003) and the ELFEN User Manual as referred to in the List of References). A failure initiation criterion evaluated at Gauss points of an element may be used to determine the onset of local fracture 400 within the domain, for example, as a response to a local tensile stress or strain along directions 405, 406. As shown in FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, a topological update then can be performed whereby a discrete fracture 403, 404 is inserted into the domain as failure occurs at a critical nodal point 402 (i.e. a nodal failure mechanism). This may require creating additional nodes 404a and connections 404b within the finite element mesh. Alternatively, fracture direction can be aligned to element boundaries attached to the node where failure occurs, as shown at 403 in FIG. 4B The contact response of the newly created surfaces can be simulated by using a variety of contact algorithms as is known in the art. Once open, discrete fractures may close under compression, re-establish the contact between fracture surfaces and either slip, stick or reopen. This might further promote initiation of second or third order fracture sets.” The Examiner notes the onset fracture as the first thickness or fracture intensity, the updated second or third fracture sets can be the result of fracture direction as well as compression which reads on the thickness and/or intensity as recited. The Examiner notes first that the claims are written in the alternative, so the thickness and/or intensity of the prior art reads on the alternative. Also, the Examiner notes that the structure of the analysis of the prior art is not limited to a specific thickness or intensity but rather the capability and explicit mention of at least 3 scenarios which reads on the claim limitation in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. For example, the prior arts 2nd or 3rd fracture sets would have the greatest and 2nd greatest values with the onset or prior to onset of fracture having the least. This would also represent the 3 scenarios as recited in the claim. Therefore, the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iv) Applicants argue that M does not disclose “modeling permeability and/or porosity of the damage zone for at least one of the three damage scenarios.” It is noted that permeability and/or porosity may represent related properties in the context of rock properties. Further as the claim limitation is presented in the alternative M recites in at least [0091] …” Mechanical and fracture properties may be distributed with a random initial heterogeneity within the fracture areas to introduce material heterogeneity therein. The material heterogeneity may be defined by specifying randomly distributed elastic properties, porosity, and tensile strength within the mesh.” Therefore, the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
5. 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 a damage zone in a fractured reservoir, comprising; ([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.) modeling damage zone thickness and fracture (“[0149] Once it is determined which parts of the geologic region to re-mesh, deformation and fracturing analysis may be carried out using an explicit FEM-DEM solver at block 112. FIGS. 7A and 7B show the deformation and fracture patterns as predicted by FEM analysis block 112. The numerical model captures the main features of deformation and might also contain information regarding fracture intensity, connectivity, length and spacing. FIG. 7B is an exemplary illustration of results from a FEM-DEM analysis. The numerical results (graphically expressed in the Figures) replicate a variety of fracture patterns and different fracturing events: layer confined fractures (708), fractures that cut through more than one layer (706), and fractures originating at layer interfaces and terminating within a single mechanical unit (707) are exemplary fracture patterns that emerge from the models. Sensitivity analysis may be performed as part of the FEM analysis by varying one or more input parameters previously defined, such as layer thickness, confining pressure, interface friction, and/or tensile strength, to see the effect on the resulting natural fracture patterns.”) integrating the damage zone thickness and fracture intensity modeling with internal modules of a 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.”)
modeling the damage zone for at least three damage scenarios, wherein a first thickness and/or first fracture intensity of the damage zone in a first damage scenario is greater than a second thickness and/or second fracture intensity of the damage zone in a second damage scenario, and the second thickness and/or second fracture intensity of the damage zone is greater than a third thickness and/or third fracture intensity of the damage zone in a third damage scenario; ([0142] As soon as a pre-defined failure criteria is satisfied, a discrete fracture can be inserted into the finite element mesh, passing through the associated nodal point and in the given direction. Fracturing can occur at a single nodal point, or a series of points can fail simultaneously during the same time increment. Realization of discrete fractures within a finite element mesh requires splitting the elements as shown in FIG. 4A at 401 (also described in Cottrell et al. (2003) and the ELFEN User Manual as referred to in the List of References). A failure initiation criterion evaluated at Gauss points of an element may be used to determine the onset of local fracture 400 within the domain, for example, as a response to a local tensile stress or strain along directions 405, 406. As shown in FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, a topological update then can be performed whereby a discrete fracture 403, 404 is inserted into the domain as failure occurs at a critical nodal point 402 (i.e. a nodal failure mechanism). This may require creating additional nodes 404a and connections 404b within the finite element mesh. Alternatively, fracture direction can be aligned to element boundaries attached to the node where failure occurs, as shown at 403 in FIG. 4B The contact response of the newly created surfaces can be simulated by using a variety of contact algorithms as is known in the art. Once open, discrete fractures may close under compression, re-establish the contact between fracture surfaces and either slip, stick or reopen. This might further promote initiation of second or third order fracture sets.) and
modeling permeability and/or porosity of the damage zone for at least one of the three damage scenarios. ([0091] “…Mechanical and fracture properties may be distributed with a random initial heterogeneity within the fracture areas to introduce material heterogeneity therein. The material heterogeneity may be defined by specifying randomly distributed elastic properties, porosity, and tensile strength within the mesh.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein input data used for integrating the damage zone thickness and fracture intensity modeling with the internal modules comprises, a grid loaded in the model generation software containing faults in stair-step or pillar grid format and scale correlation and fracture modeling parameters. ([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, wherein the grid loaded in the model generation software calculates fault slip converts the fault slip into slip points and transfers the slip points to a folder. ([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 7: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, comprising: displaying an indication of the damage zone thickness, a density of fractures and structure crossing zones. (Figure 8A-8B)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method according to claim 2 comprising: scaling fracture properties to the grid. (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.
6. 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, generating surfaces and properties of direction (M. Figure 5, elements showing surface properties and directions)
M does not explicitly recite dip angle and converting the surfaces into points with slip and dip.
However MC recites dip angle and converting the surfaces 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, comprising: calculating a distance to each fault in the fractured reservoir.
However MC recites calculating a distance to each fault in the fractured reservoir. (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…
7. 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, comprising generating accumulated and summed properties of all faults, and normalized properties to use as a trend.
However FM recites generating accumulated and summed properties of all faults, and 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]
8. 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, comprising: normalizing a fracture porosity between a minimum and a maximum defined by a user.
However H recites normalizing a fracture porosity between a minimum and a maximum defined by a 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])
9. 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, comprising: classifying faults in domains based on an average direction of the faults; analyzing each fault to identify a maximum length, maximum slip, average dip angle and direction of the respective fault; and generating a lineament that corresponds to the maximum fault length of the respective fault.
However A recites classifying faults in domains based on an average direction of the faults; (A. Page 50, The shear deformation bands belonging to the NW-SE-oriented fault system.) analyzing each fault to identify a 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 of the respective fault; (A. Page 50, The shear deformation bands belonging to the NW-SE-oriented fault system.) and generating a lineament that corresponds to the maximum fault length of the respective fault. (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
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights