DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025, 07/14/2025 and 12/24/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-16, 18-20, 22-23, 25-26 and 28 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) Montgomery in view of Zhang and Havens as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-16, 18-20, 22, 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery (US 20160018556 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 102518433 B, all citations provided from machine translation attached) and Havens (US 20170067337 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Montgomery teaches a method comprising determining stratigraphic correlations between two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements (performing a graphic correlation of the chronostratigraphic dataset from at least one location in the rock formation; determining a sequence stratigraphic model based on the graphic correlation), each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a different well in a region (However, the plugs may also be extracted at different locations) (provide information on lateral variations in depositional environment within one time slice, where each well-bore analyzed is a control point) (well correlations between data from a plurality of wells (two or more wells) can also be constructed, at S38). (Paragraphs 6, 19, 62, 70, 57-58, 45-46)
Montgomery also teaches wherein each set of stratigraphic measurements comprises:(a) measurements of a stratigraphic parameter obtained from a plurality of rock samples from the respective well, each rock sample of the respective plurality of rock samples being associated with a different measurement location within the respective well (the chronostratigraphic analysis method provides the time that elapsed between a depositional layer at one location in a well bore and another depositional layer at another location in the well bore by analyzing a core or cutting) (the plugs may be extracted at the same location as the homogenized samples for the geochemical analysis so as to link the palaeomagnetic (PMAG) analysis with the geochemical analysis. However, the plugs may also be extracted at different locations); and (b) corresponding measurements of a depth parameter for each measurement location in the respective well, wherein the stratigraphic parameter is a parameter indicative of a rock characteristic and the depth parameter is a parameter indicative of a subterranean depth of a measurement location (Each composited cuttings sample are is labeled with two depths that provide the depth interval in the well-bore that the composited cuttings sample represents) (These cuttings are labelled with a single value that indicates the depth in the well bore the cuttings sample represents). (Paragraphs 6, 70, 45-46, 25)
Montgomery also teaches wherein the measured depth parameter for each measurement location is indicative of a subterranean depth of the said measurement location relative to the local ground surface. (Paragraphs 25-27)
Montgomery does not explicitly teach each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a lateral well in a region and the method further comprises, prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: correcting one or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface and wherein correcting a set of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface comprises: determining the inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface; and for each measurement location in the lateral well, calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon, taking into account the determined inclination.
Zhang teaches determining stratigraphic correlations (stratigraphic correlation method) between two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements, each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a lateral well (horizontal wells) in a region. (Abstract, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 5-7)
Zhang also teaches the method further comprises, prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: correcting (making depth of inclined section inclined correction) one or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface. (Page.4, lines 10-13 and lines 19-21, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9)
Zhang also teaches wherein correcting a set of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface comprises: determining the inclination of the lateral well (making depth of inclined section inclined correction) relative to the local ground surface; and calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon, taking into account the determined inclination. (Page.4, lines 10-13 and lines 19-21, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9)
Havens also teaches for each measurement location in the lateral well, calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon. (Paragraphs 209, 208, 11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a lateral well in a region and correcting one or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface and the method further comprises, prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: correcting one or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface and wherein correcting a set of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface comprises: determining the inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface; and calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon, taking into account the determined inclination as taught by Zhang in order to further refine the logo layer structure and achieve a precise target into thin carbonate reservoir, to protect the horizontal well development and further modify Montgomery to incorporate for each measurement location in the lateral well, calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon as taught by Havens in order to improve the anisotropic property determination (See Paragraph 208 of Havens).
Regarding claim 3, Montgomery teaches wherein the rock samples are cuttings samples (the cuttings samples are produced from the drilling action and fluid circulation in well-bores and are collected to represent composited intervals). (Paragraphs 25)
Regarding claim 7, Montgomery does not explicitly teach wherein the inclination of the lateral well is the average inclination of a lateral segment of the lateral well.
Havens teaches wherein the inclination of the lateral well is the average inclination of a lateral segment of the lateral well. (Paragraphs 111, 174, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate wherein the inclination of the lateral well is the average inclination of a lateral segment of the lateral well as taught by Havens in order to record and extract signals in relation to the three, independent spatial axes of the drilling vibrations (See Paragraph 174 of Havens)
Regarding claim 8, Montgomery teaches determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements by a graphic correlation method (The plot is based, firstly, on the total stratigraphic range of fossils (biostratigraphy) contained in both sections, and visibly displays the best time correlation between the two sections (geologic section and standard reference section)) (In the present case, the graphic correlation procedure at S36 is used to link two or more of the above dating procedures together and cross reference them in order to ensure they are in the best case scenario and ensure no discrepancies between the results obtained from each method employed). (Paragraph 55, Claim 1, Fig.12)
Regarding claim 9, Montgomery teaches wherein the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements are two or more first sets of stratigraphic measurements each comprising measurements of a first stratigraphic parameter (The chronostratigraphic method includes a series of procedures that may be used in various combinations to establish a relationship between the samples collected from the one or more cores or collected from the one or more cuttings and geologic time) and the method further comprises determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more first sets of stratigraphic measurements and two or more second sets of stratigraphic measurements (A computer can also be used to perform a well correlation with accumulation rates derived from a graphic correlation and spatial distribution of a set of wells, as shown, for example in FIG. 13), the two or more second sets of stratigraphic measurements each comprising measurements of a second stratigraphic parameter different from the first stratigraphic parameter. (Paragraphs 45, 76, 40, Claims 1-3, 20, 27, Figs.12-13)
Regarding claim 10, Montgomery teaches wherein the two or more second sets of stratigraphic measurements are obtained from the same wells in the region as the two or more first sets of stratigraphic measurements (In one embodiment, the plugs may be extracted at the same location as the homogenized samples for the geochemical analysis so as to link the palaeomagnetic (PMAG) analysis with the geochemical analysis). (Paragraphs 46-47, 6)
Montgomery does not explicitly teach obtaining measurements from lateral wells.
Zhang teaches obtaining measurements from lateral wells. (Abstract, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 5-7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate obtaining measurements from lateral wells as taught by Zhang in order to achieve a precise target into thin carbonate reservoir, to protect the horizontal well development
Regarding claim 11, Montgomery teaches wherein the or each stratigraphic parameter is: a chronostratigraphic parameter indicative of relative rock age or absolute rock age (Another procedure that can be used to link time with a position of the sample from the core includes performing Rhenium-Osmium (Re-OS) chronology procedure, at S34. Re-Os includes the determination of absolute age using Re-OS geochronology (based on the beta decay of the isotope .sup.187Re to .sup.187Os)), for example a radiometric dating parameter or a stable isotope dating parameter; a chemostratigraphic parameter indicative of rock composition; and/or a lithostratigraphic parameter indicative of rock type. (Paragraphs 6, 52-53, 57, Claim 1, Fig.3)
Regarding claim 12, Montgomery teaches compiling a stratigraphic composite profile for the region based on the identified correlations (The computer can also be used to perform the graphic correlation methodology to derive accumulation rates, as depicted, for example in FIG. 12. A computer can also be used to perform a well correlation with accumulation rates derived from a graphic correlation and spatial distribution of a set of wells, as shown, for example in FIG. 13. The computer may also be used to display in a three-dimensional map a result of the Palaeogeographic reconstruction for one time slice, as shown in FIG. 14, or for a plurality of time slices). (Paragraphs 76, 72-74, Claim 2, 20, 26, Fig.13-14)
Regarding claim 13, Montgomery teaches constructing a sedimentary depositional model of the region based on the identified correlations (FIG. 7 illustrates various processes or mechanisms for incorporating various elements (e.g., Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, etc.) into a sedimentary accumulation layer). (Paragraphs 29, 37, 50, Figs.7, 3)
Regarding claim 14, Montgomery teaches targeting a sub-region of the region for hydrocarbon exploration based on the identified correlations. (Paragraph 55, Fig.12)
Regarding claim 15, Montgomery teaches drilling a well for hydrocarbon extraction in the targeted sub-region. (Paragraphs 25, 64, 70)
Montgomery does not explicitly teach drilling a lateral well.
Zhang teaches drilling a lateral well. (Abstract, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 5-7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate drilling a lateral well as taught by Zhang in order to achieve a precise target into thin carbonate reservoir, to protect the horizontal well development
Regarding claim 16, Montgomery wherein the steps are carried out by a computer. (Paragraphs 76-80, 82, Fig.6)
Regarding claim 18, Montgomery teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1. (Paragraphs 76-80, 82, Fig.6)
Regarding claim 19, Montgomery teaches determining stratigraphic correlations between two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements (performing a graphic correlation of the chronostratigraphic dataset from at least one location in the rock formation; determining a sequence stratigraphic model based on the graphic correlation), each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from different sections of the same well in a region (the plugs may also be extracted at different locations)(provide information on lateral variations in depositional environment within one time slice, where each well-bore analyzed is a control point) (In addition to the graphic correlation methodology that is done on single well-bores, at S36, well correlations between data from a plurality of wells (two or more wells) can also be constructed, at S38). (Paragraphs 6, 19, 62, 70, 57, 46)
Montgomery also teaches wherein each set of stratigraphic measurements comprises:(a) measurements of a stratigraphic parameter obtained from a plurality of rock samples from the respective section of the well, each rock sample of the respective plurality of rock samples being associated with a different measurement location within the respective well (the chronostratigraphic analysis method provides the time that elapsed between a depositional layer at one location in a well bore and another depositional layer at another location in the well bore by analyzing a core or cutting) (the plugs may be extracted at the same location as the homogenized samples for the geochemical analysis so as to link the palaeomagnetic (PMAG) analysis with the geochemical analysis. However, the plugs may also be extracted at different locations); and (b) corresponding measurements of a depth parameter for each measurement location in the respective section of the well, wherein the stratigraphic parameter is a parameter indicative of a rock characteristic and the depth parameter is a parameter indicative of a subterranean depth of a measurement location (Each composited cuttings sample are is labeled with two depths that provide the depth interval in the well-bore that the composited cuttings sample represents) (These cuttings are labelled with a single value that indicates the depth in the well bore the cuttings sample represents). (Paragraphs 6, 70, 45-46, 25)
Montgomery also teaches wherein the measured depth parameter for each measurement location is indicative of a subterranean depth of the said measurement location relative to the local ground surface. (Paragraphs 25-27)
Montgomery does not explicitly teach each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a lateral well in a region and the method further comprises, prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements, correcting the two or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface and wherein correcting a set of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface comprises: determining the inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface; and for each measurement location in the lateral well, calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon, taking into account the determined inclination.
Zhang teaches determining stratigraphic correlations (stratigraphic correlation method) between two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements, each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a lateral well (horizontal wells) in a region. (Abstract, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 5-7)
Zhang also teaches the method further comprises, prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: correcting (making depth of inclined section inclined correction) on the two or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface. (Page.4, lines 10-13 and lines 19-21, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9)
Zhang also teaches wherein correcting a set of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface comprises: determining the inclination of the lateral well (making depth of inclined section inclined correction) relative to the local ground surface; and calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon, taking into account the determined inclination. (Page.4, lines 10-13 and lines 19-21, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9)
Havens also teaches for each measurement location in the lateral well, calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon. (Paragraphs 209, 208, 11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate each set of stratigraphic measurements being obtained from a lateral well in a region and correcting one or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the respective lateral well relative to the local ground surface and the method further comprises, prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: correcting the two or more of the sets of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface and wherein correcting a set of stratigraphic measurements to take into account a non-zero inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface comprises: determining the inclination of the lateral well relative to the local ground surface; and calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon, taking into account the determined inclination as taught by Zhang in order to further refine the logo layer structure and achieve a precise target into thin carbonate reservoir, to protect the horizontal well development and further modify Montgomery to incorporate for each measurement location in the lateral well, calculating a corrected depth parameter, indicative of a depth of the measurement location relative to a local geological horizon as taught by Havens in order to improve the anisotropic property determination (See Paragraph 208 of Havens).
Regarding claim 20, Montgomery teaches wherein the different sections of the same well are different sections of a lateral segment of the same well (In addition to the graphic correlation methodology that is done on single well-bores, at S36, well correlations between data from a plurality of wells (two or more wells) can also be constructed, at S38). (Paragraphs 57, 45, 70)
Montgomery does not explicitly teach lateral wells.
Zhang teaches lateral wells. (Abstract, Page.5, lines 34-36, Claims 1, 5-7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate lateral wells as taught by Zhang in order to achieve a precise target into thin carbonate reservoir, to protect the horizontal well development.
Regarding claim 22, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 22, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 25, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 25, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 26, Montgomery wherein the method is carried out by a computer. (Paragraphs 76-80, 82, Fig.6)
Regarding claim 28, Montgomery teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 19. (Paragraphs 76-80, 82, Fig.6)
Claim(s) 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery in view of Zhang, Havens and Williams (US 20140100833 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Montgomery does not explicitly teach prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: measuring values of the stratigraphic parameter, and corresponding values of the depth parameter, for each of the plurality of rock samples.
Williams teaches prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: measuring values of the stratigraphic parameter (the fracture stratigraphic parameters can be correlated with mechanical stratigraphic parameters derived, for example, from well logs, seismic attributes, core data, or other sources) (the fracture stratigraphy is correlated with mechanical stratigraphy. Correlating fracture stratigraphy and mechanical stratigraphy can include comparing spatial variations in fracture stratigraphy with spatial variations in the mechanical properties of the rock), and corresponding values of the depth parameter, for each of the plurality of rock samples (the filter parameters can identify a range of depths in a subterranean zone or a particular rock unit or formation in a subterranean zone). (Paragraphs 14, 80, 32, 70)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Montgomery to incorporate prior to determining stratigraphic correlations between the two or more sets of stratigraphic measurements: measuring values of the stratigraphic parameter, and corresponding values of the depth parameter, for each of the plurality of rock samples as taught by Williams in order to identify a range of depths in a subterranean zone or a particular rock unit or formation in a subterranean zone (See Paragraph 70 of Williams)
Regarding claim 23, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 23, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645