DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on May 22, 2023.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 2, 5-14, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1-3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu.
Rejection of claims 4, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view Busetti.
Rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view of Walles.
Rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view of Busetti and Walles.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 2, 5-14, and 17-19 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.
Claim 2 is unclear because, in claim 1, the “at least one correction factor” is correlated with a cell in the grid, but claim 2 recites that the “at least one correction factor” is two factors, one based on the grid and one based on a separate grid. Thus, it is unclear how correction factors correlated with the grid can include one based on the grid and one based on another grid. For purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted to mean that there are two correction factors: one related to the grid and one related to a separate grid. Proper clarification is required.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the correction factors recited in the claim (a “grid dependence correction factor” and an “ideal correction factor”) are the same factors as recited in claim 2 or are entirely different factors. In both instances, one of the correction factors is based on the grid and one is based on a second grid, but how these are also correlated with a cell in the grid (and therefore both based on the grid) and at least one based on something else. Proper clarification is required.
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 17 is rejected for being indefinite because the term “transport parameters for proppant” is not disclosed in the Specification. For the purposes of examination, the term is interpreted to mean “instructions to cause proppant to be injected into a fracture.” However, without proper support in the Specification, the term is unclear. Further, the claim recites using the fracture to control a parameter. It is unclear how a physical object (i.e., a fracture in a reservoir) can control a parameter. Proper correction is required. Claim 18 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the hydraulic fractures.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear from the claim and from the Specification what the difference is between “the fracture” and the “hydraulic fractures.” While interpretation for the purposes of examination is that the two terms are synonymous, Applicant is required to either amend the claim to clarify the term(s) or indicate where the terms are defined in the Specification.
In the present Office Action, claims 5-14 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103. However, with further clarification and amendments to correct and clarify the claims, it is likely additional art may be identified that is relevant to the claimed invention. Further, the “Pertinent Prior Art” section of this Office Action includes art that has been identified as closely related to the claimed invention but, due to indefiniteness in the claims, could not be asserted.
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 judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of receiving data and recitations of generic computer components are not significantly more than a recited judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A computer-implemented geologic modeling method comprising:
accessing a geologic model representing a subsurface region as a grid of cells, at least some of the cells in the grid having one or more interfaces representing boundaries of subsurface structures including at least one natural or induced fracture;
determining, using a specific solving methodology, a fracture extension to the at least one natural or induced fracture into at least one cell in the grid by
comparing stress associated with the at least one cell with critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell, the determination using at least one correction factor correlating at least one aspect of the at least one cell in the grid with at least one aspect unrelated to the grid; and
using the fracture extension in order to control at least one aspect of hydraulic fracturing in the subsurface region.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
A fracture extension can be determined by a human based on reviewing images and/or output from a model based on observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, field measurements can be performed and divided into a grid and a user can evaluation each grid to identify fractures that enter and/or exit each grid.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Stress can be determined based on field measurements and the values can be compared to a critical stress value, which is a mathematical operation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computer-implemented geologic modeling method comprising:
accessing a geologic model representing a subsurface region as a grid of cells, at least some of the cells in the grid having one or more interfaces representing boundaries of subsurface structures including at least one natural or induced fracture;
determining, using a specific solving methodology, a fracture extension to the at least one natural or induced fracture into at least one cell in the grid by
comparing stress associated with the at least one cell with critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell, the determination using at least one correction factor correlating at least one aspect of the at least one cell in the grid with at least one aspect unrelated to the grid; and
using the fracture extension in order to control at least one aspect of hydraulic fracturing in the subsurface region.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation recites the additional element of retrieving information. Receiving and providing data (i.e., transmitting data) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is accessed and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
General recitations of utilization of information that is determined by a judicial exception(mental process and/or mathematical concepts) is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). For example, the limitation does not recite how the fracture extension is used, how fracturing is controlled, and/or what aspect is controlled.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Reciting generic computer components is an additional element that courts have found to be insignificantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, ideas of solutions, according to courts, is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein the at least one correction factor comprises a first correction factor based on the at least one cell in the grid and a second correction factor based on a separate grid. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the second correction factor is selected based on one of an ideal grid in which an analytical solution matches a simulated solution using the specific solving methodology, on output from a benchmark simulator, or on corroboration with field data. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the grid comprises a uniform or a non-uniform grid; and wherein the separate grid comprises a uniform grid. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception and insignificant additional element. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the at least one correction factor comprises a grid dependence correction factor and an ideal correction factor, the grid dependence correction factor reducing dependence of the at least one cell in the grid on the stress determined to be associated with the at least one cell; wherein the grid dependence correction factor is based on at least one aspect of the at least one cell; and wherein the ideal correction factor is based on a separate grid. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the grid dependence correction factor is based on a characteristic length associated with the at least one cell in the grid. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the grid dependence correction factor comprises a square root of the characteristic length associated with the at least one cell. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Further, although not explicitly claimed, generation of the grid dependence correction factor is performed via a mathematical concept (i.e., squaring a value). Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the characteristic length is based on a volume of the at least one cell. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the characteristic length is based on a face area of interface at the fracture extension. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein the characteristic length is based on a length along a crack propagation direction for the fracture extension. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites wherein the ideal correction factor is based on a characteristic length associated with the cell in the ideal grid. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites wherein the ideal correction factor comprises a solving methodology correction factor for coupling the specific solving methodology with the material of the at least one cell. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites wherein the characteristic length associated with the ideal grid is determined by identifying a value of the specific solving methodology for simulating the fracture extension that matches a true solution for the fracture extension. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites wherein the grid dependence correction factor is based on a distance of a crack tip of the fracture to a part of the at least one cell at which stress is calculated; wherein the ideal correction factor is based on a characteristic length associated with the ideal grid; and wherein the at least one correction factor is based on a square root of the characteristic length divided by a square root of the distance. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Further, the claims recites variables that are determined utilizing mathematical concepts. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites wherein the specific solving methodology comprises finite element method or finite volume method. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites wherein comparing the stress associated with the at least one cell with the critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell comprises comparing the stress inside the at least one cell with the critical stress associated with the material of the at least one cell. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites wherein the fracture is used in order to control transport parameters for proppant passing through a hydraulic fracture network. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein the transport parameters controlled include pressure at which the proppant is pumped. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies variables that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites wherein the fracture is used in order to determine fracture dimensions of the hydraulic fractures. The claims does not recite additional elements but instead further specifies elements that have been determined to be a part of a judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites substantially the same imitations as the method of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,391,854, hereinafter “Zhu”).
Claim 1
Zhu discloses:
A computer-implemented geologic modeling method comprising:
The objective of the present invention is implemented by the following technical solution: the optimization design method for volumetric fracturing construction parameters of an unconventional oil and gas reservoir includes the following steps: S1, establishing a three-dimensional geological model with physical and geomechanical parameters…. Zhu at col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 5.
accessing a geologic model representing a subsurface region as a grid of cells, at least some of the cells in the grid having one or more interfaces representing boundaries of subsurface structures including at least one natural or induced fracture;
…establishing a mesh model according to analysis needs… Zhu at col. 5, line 63.
wherein layer information in the three-dimensional geological model should match a real formation layer, Zhu at col. 2, lines 5-7.
determining, using a specific solving methodology, a fracture extension to the at least one natural or induced fracture into at least one cell in the grid by comparing stress associated with the at least one cell with critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell,
the shale reservoir gas reservoir model with a complex fracture network is established by reservoir natural fracture description and pre-fracturing complex fracture analysis, and the problem that only a simple fracturing fracture can be described in the traditional shale reservoir gas reservoir model, such that the dynamic change in pore pressure in the production process cannot be analyzed accurately is solved; Zhu at col. 2, line 66- col.3, line 6.
next, performing interpretation on the reservoir layer in combination with single-well parameter profile data (including at least porosity, permeability, saturation, sedimentary facies, density, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, lithology, lithofacies and three-way geostress) corrected in an indoor rock core experiment… Zhu at col. 4, lines 11-16.
the determination using at least one correction factor correlating at least one aspect of the at least one cell in the grid with at least one aspect unrelated to the grid; and
the specific step of establishing the three-dimensional geological model includes: firstly, establishing a three-dimensional geological layer model of each small layer in the reservoir according to seismic data or geological atlas, and correcting the layer information by using single-well data in a block… Zhu at col. 4, lines 3-8.
next, performing interpretation on the reservoir layer in combination with single-well parameter profile data (including at least porosity, permeability, saturation, sedimentary facies, density, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, lithology, lithofacies and three-way geostress) corrected in an indoor rock core experiment… Zhu at col. 4, lines 11-16.
using the fracture extension in order to control at least one aspect of hydraulic fracturing in the subsurface region.
the present invention proposes an optimization design method for volumetric fracturing construction parameters of the shale gas reservoir, and provides a theoretical basis for maximizing the effect of volumetric fracturing transformation of the infill well, which can increase the single-well capacity of the infilled well and improve the recovery efficiency of the reservoir. Zhu at col. 3, lines 23-29.
Claim 2
Zhu discloses:
wherein the at least one correction factor comprises a first correction factor based on the at least one cell in the grid and
firstly, establishing a three-dimensional geological layer model of each small layer in the reservoir according to seismic data or geological atlas, and correcting the layer information by using single-well data in a block… Zhu at col. 4, lines 4-8.
a second correction factor based on a separate grid.
next, performing interpretation on the reservoir layer in combination with single-well parameter profile data (including at least porosity, permeability, saturation, sedimentary facies, density, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, lithology, lithofacies and three-way geostress) corrected in an indoor rock core experiment… Zhu at col. 4, lines 11-16.
Claim 3
Zhu discloses:
wherein the second correction factor is selected based on one of an ideal grid in which an analytical solution matches a simulated solution using the specific solving methodology, on output from a benchmark simulator, or on corroboration with field data.
next, performing interpretation on the reservoir layer in combination with single-well parameter profile data (including at least porosity, permeability, saturation, sedimentary facies, density, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, lithology, lithofacies and three-way geostress) corrected in an indoor rock core experiment… Zhu at col. 4, lines 11-16.
Claim 15
Zhu discloses:
wherein the specific solving methodology comprises finite element method or finite volume method.
compiling a three-dimensional search interpolation program, and interpolating the attributes in the three-dimensional geological model into the finite element geomechanical mesh model to establish a four-dimensional isotropic geomechanical model…. Zhu at col. 6, lines 7-11.
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 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 4, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view Busetti, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 11,933,168, hereinafter “Busetti”).
Claim 4
Zhu does not appear to disclose:
wherein the grid comprises a uniform or a non-uniform grid; and wherein the separate grid comprises a uniform grid.
Busetti,, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein the grid comprises a uniform or a non-uniform grid; and wherein the separate grid comprises a uniform grid.
The large scale structural geologic models containing accurate three-dimensional fault representations of discrete fault surfaces often required use of unstructured triangular or tetrahedral meshes. In contrast, stratigraphic models used to model hydraulic fracturing at a stimulated rock volume scale (tens of meters) were more easily formed if they were composed of grid elements which were hexahedral and continuous. Busetti at col. 1, line 66- col. 2, line 6.
Busetti is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to geological modeling using a grid of cells. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the processes of Zhu with the grid configuration of Busetti to result in a system that utilizes a separate uniform grid. Motivation to combine includes reduction in model-building time and circumventing instabilities associated with complex mesh geometries.
Claim 17
Zhu does not appear to disclose:
wherein the fracture is used in order to control transport parameters for proppant passing through a hydraulic fracture network.
Busetti discloses:
wherein the fracture is used in order to control transport parameters for proppant passing through a hydraulic fracture network.
The injection treatment performed during the modeling of step 62 was simplified to a two-step injection profile with a 10 minute step with 150 cP (centipoise) fluid and no proppant and a 10 minute slurry step with 150 cP fluid composed of an average 1.8 ppg (pounds per gallon) concentration of 40/70 mesh ceramic proppant. Busetti at col. 15, lines 3-11.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the intended purpose of Busetti (i.e., to utilize the identified fracture to inject proppant) with the process of Zhu to result in a system with application in the field of reservoir fracturing. Motivation to combine includes improved proppant injection predictions, thereby reducing time and effort to perform fracturing and injection in areas where the yields would be most beneficial and cost effective.
Claim 19
Zhu does not appear to disclose:
wherein the fracture is used in order to determine fracture dimensions of the hydraulic fractures.
Busetti discloses:
wherein the fracture is used in order to determine fracture dimensions of the hydraulic fractures.
The workflow according to the present disclosure generates different structurally conditioned SRV models based on the same stratigraphy and far field tectonic stress conditions, and identical fracture injection parameters. The results show that structural position affects hydraulic fracture length, height, orientation, and pressure distribution. Busetti at col. 16, line 65- col. 17, line 3.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the intended purpose of Busetti (i.e., to utilize the identified fracture to inject proppant) with the process of Zhu to result in a system with application in the field of reservoir fracturing. Motivation to combine includes improved proppant injection predictions, thereby reducing time and effort to perform fracturing and injection in areas where the yields would be most beneficial and cost effective.
Claim 20
Zhu discloses:
A computer-implemented geologic modeling method comprising:
The objective of the present invention is implemented by the following technical solution: the optimization design method for volumetric fracturing construction parameters of an unconventional oil and gas reservoir includes the following steps: S1, establishing a three-dimensional geological model with physical and geomechanical parameters…. Zhu at col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 5.
determining, using the specific solving methodology, a fracture extension to the at least one natural or induced fracture into at least one cell in the grid by comparing stress associated with the at least one cell with critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell; and
the shale reservoir gas reservoir model with a complex fracture network is established by reservoir natural fracture description and pre-fracturing complex fracture analysis, and the problem that only a simple fracturing fracture can be described in the traditional shale reservoir gas reservoir model, such that the dynamic change in pore pressure in the production process cannot be analyzed accurately is solved; Zhu at col. 2, line 66- col.3, line 6.
next, performing interpretation on the reservoir layer in combination with single-well parameter profile data (including at least porosity, permeability, saturation, sedimentary facies, density, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, lithology, lithofacies and three-way geostress) corrected in an indoor rock core experiment… Zhu at col. 4, lines 11-16.
using the fracture extension in order to control at least one aspect of hydraulic fracturing in the subsurface region.
the present invention proposes an optimization design method for volumetric fracturing construction parameters of the shale gas reservoir, and provides a theoretical basis for maximizing the effect of volumetric fracturing transformation of the infill well, which can increase the single-well capacity of the infilled well and improve the recovery efficiency of the reservoir. Zhu at col. 3, lines 23-29.
Zhu does not appear to disclose:
determining a uniform grid of cells in order to represent a subsurface region by selecting a size of the cells in the uniform grid so that determinations of stress for the cells in the uniform grid for a specific solving methodology are in agreement with a true solution, at least some of the cells in the grid having one or more interfaces representing boundaries of subsurface structures including at least one natural or induced fracture;
Busetti discloses:
determining a uniform grid of cells in order to represent a subsurface region by selecting a size of the cells in the uniform grid so that determinations of stress for the cells in the uniform grid for a specific solving methodology are in agreement with a true solution, at least some of the cells in the grid having one or more interfaces representing boundaries of subsurface structures including at least one natural or induced fracture;
The SRV model height must also extend far enough to reduce boundary or edge effects in a numerical stress simulation. A typical SRV model height for a model with one or two stimulation depth-zones is 25-100 m. The SRV model width depends on the number of hydraulic fractures, the fracture geometric complexity, and whether fractures are generated from a vertical well (narrower SRV model) or distributed along a horizontal well (wider SRV model). Busetti at col. 8, lines 8-14.
The present disclosure provides, as will be described, a new and improved geomechanical modeling methodology for fully integrating the stress and strain fields associated with three-dimensional faults and folds at their native resolution (seismic to tectonic scale) with stress and strain fields associated with local mechanical stratigraphic architecture (wellbore to hydraulic fracture scale), while also preserving appropriate geomechanical mesh resolution at each scale. Busetti at col. 7, lines 3-10.
See FIG. 21, illustrating uniform grid cells, including boundaries of subsurface structures.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the processes of Zhu with the grid configuration of Busetti to result in a system that utilizes a separate uniform grid. Motivation to combine includes reduction in model-building time and circumventing instabilities associated with complex mesh geometries.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view of Walles, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 11,513,254, hereinafter “Walles”).
Claim 16
Zhu does not appear to disclose:
wherein comparing the stress associated with the at least one cell with the critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell comprises comparing the stress inside the at least one cell with the critical stress associated with the material of the at least one cell.
Walles, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein comparing the stress associated with the at least one cell with the critical stress associated with a material of the at least one cell comprises comparing the stress inside the at least one cell with the critical stress associated with the material of the at least one cell.
Methods may include estimating fluid content from the quantitative borehole fluid information and identifying a fracture with critical stress connectivity in dependence upon fluid content. Walles at col. 2, lines 23-25.
Walles is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to identifying and quantifying fractures in a reservoir. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the processes of Zhu with the analysis of Walles to result in a system that determines fracture properties utilizing stress in a cell in comparison to a critical stress of the materials in the cell. Motivation to combine includes reducing errors in numerical modeling of reservoirs and improvements in fracturing simulations by applying heterogeneous modeling assumptions to the model.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view of Busetti and Walles.
Claim 18
Zhu and Busetti do not appear to disclose:
wherein the transport parameters controlled include pressure at which the proppant is pumped.
Walles discloses:
wherein the transport parameters controlled include pressure at which the proppant is pumped.
Operational parameters such as the type and/or amount of proppant, flow rate of stimulation fluid (e.g., hydraulic fracture fluid), and pump pressure of stimulation fluid may be selected.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the processes of Zhu to control proppant injection, as disclosed in Walles. Motivation to combine includes improved injection procedures based on accurate predictions, thus reducing cost and time associated with less than efficient proppant injections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imhoff, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0120478) discloses non-uniform and uniform grids, as recited in claim 4.
Artus, et al., “Transmissibility Corrections and Grid Control for Shale Gas Numerical Production Forecasts,” discloses correction factors, numerical (i.e., “true”) solutions, and grid characteristics of a model.
Zhang, et al., “Development of accurate well models for numerical reservoir simulation,” discloses utilizing numerical solutions in developing a well model as well as necessary corrections in simulations to account for well presence.
Geertsma, et al., “A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures,” discloses a method for determining size and extent of a fracture.
Zhang, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 12,006,812, discloses methods for predicting fractures in a region of interest.
Rings, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 11,237,296, discloses a fast solver for numerical simulations of fracture propagation.
Al-Nahdi, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,571,604, discloses correction factors in simulations of reservoirs.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Although all pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Specification discloses drawbacks of known methods of determining a fracture extension (see Specification at [0008]-[0009]). Further, the Specification discloses the computational cost of known methods (Spec. at [0039]), which can be reduced by mesh independence (Spec. at [0039]-[0040]). Thus, if the claims were amended to reflect an improvement in either the technology of reservoir models and/or in the field of fracturing, assuming the limitations are more than just an idea of a solution and supported in the Specification, the rejection may be overcome. For example, although rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, claim 5 recites two correction factors. If the claim recited the correction factors more clearly and in greater detail, and further recited how the use of the factors improves a technological field, a persuasive argument may be made as to the eligibility of such a claim under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188