DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on December 23, 2025.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on December 23, 2025 have been entered.
The abstract has been amended.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1, 6-11 and 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Although applicant has not presented arguments regarding the objections to the specification presented in the previous office action, including the objections to the abstract of the disclosure, the examiner submits that in view of the amendments to the specification addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 12-14), filed on 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 13) that The amended independent claims contain limitations that cannot be performed in the human mind, such as, (1) using different scenarios of boundary locations within a target well to identify different packages within the same interval of the target well, (2) determining the thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the different packages of interest, and (3) determining the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in a region based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the different packages of interest. The human mind is incapable of performing the above steps, which require computer hardware and software. Thus, the amended independent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner submits that the claimed invention, when considered as a whole, recites data collection and analysis using a series of mental/mathematical steps in order to determine additional information, while appending generic computer components used to facilitate the application of the judicial exception (e.g., mere computer implementation), limiting the analysis to a particular field of use, and selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated, which according to the current guidance:
“For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
“A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
“Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering … Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicant also argues (p. 13-14) that The amended independent claims contain limitations that provide improvement to the technology of reservoir exploration. Reservoir characterization from well data is a key challenge in subsurface analysis. Assessing spatial variability of subsurface properties (e.g., reservoir properties) from well data is difficult, subjective, biased, and non-repeatable. For example, manual correlation of wells may result in limited scenarios or subsurface property values being considered at an undrilled well location. Thus, there is an inability to assess the uncertainty associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions. The limitations of the amended independent claims enables assessment of the uncertainty associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions. By using different scenarios of boundary locations with different top-and-base boundary pairs within the same interval of a target well, the amended independent claims provides for identification of different packages of interest within the same interval of the target well. The amended independent claims then requires determination of the thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the different packages of interest, from which the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region including the target well are determined. Such use of different packages of interest in the different boundary scenarios provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions. See Application, Paragraphs 0003, 0021, 0023, 0026, 0036, 0040-0052. Thus, the amended independent claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into practical application and is significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that, as evidenced by applicant’s disclosure, the claims refer to a computerized version of a conventional process in the particular field (see specification at [0003], [0024]-[0025]), however, as explained in the current guidance:
“As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the examiner submits that as described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence: “Even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”), and as explained in the MPEP: “In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two” (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 14-17), filed on 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claims, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “obtain boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells …” should read “obtain boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary locations and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “select a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well” should read “select a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary locations and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determine thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second subsurface property of the second thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the second scenario of boundary locations” should read “determine thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and
Claim language “determine the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary location provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions” should read “determine the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of the different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary locations provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The system of claim 6, wherein a degree or an amount of overlap between the different packages of interest across the different scenarios of boundary locations determines weighting of uncertainty in the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to identify new drilling locations for wells based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “obtaining boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells …” should read “obtaining boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary locations and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “selecting a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well” should read “selecting a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary locations and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second subsurface property of the second thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the second scenario of boundary locations” should read “determining thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and
Claim language “determining the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary location provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions” should read “determining the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of the different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary locations provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 16, wherein a degree or an amount of overlap between the different packages of interest across the different scenarios of boundary locations determines weighting of uncertainty in the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “select a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts for selection purposes (i.e., select a target interval of a target well, see specification at [0040]-[0044]). Except for the recitation of the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts for selecting a target zone of a well.
the limitation “identify, within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, a top-and-base boundary pair within the target interval, the top-and-base boundary pair including a top boundary and a bottom boundary, the top-and-base boundary pair defining a package of interest, wherein a first top-and-base boundary pair is identified within the target interval within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second top-and-base boundary pair is identified within the target interval within the second scenario of boundary locations, the first top-and-base boundary pair different from the second top-and-base boundary pair, the first top-and-base boundary pair defining a first package of interest within the first scenario of boundary locations and the second top-and-base boundary pair defining a second package of interest within the second scenario of boundary locations, the first package of interest different from the second package of interest for the target interval” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts for identification purposes (i.e., identify a top-and-base boundary pair within the target interval among different top-and-base boundary pairs, see specification at [0045]-[0046], [0050]). Except for the recitation of the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation for identifying a package of interest within a target zone of a well.
the limitation “determine thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second subsurface property of the second thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the second scenario of boundary locations” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest, see specification at [0047]-[0050]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
the limitation “determine the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary location provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest, see specification at [0051]-[0054]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A system for characterizing a subsurface region” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“obtain well information, the well information defining a group of wells within a region of interest, the group of wells including multiple wells” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated, see specification at [0029]-[0033]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
“obtain boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells, individual scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells determined based on propagation of boundaries of a single well in the group of wells to other wells in the group of wells” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated, see specification at [0034]-[0039]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., characterizing a subsurface region), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
append generic computer components (i.e., one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 6-9 and 16-19), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claims 2-5, 10, 12-15 and 20), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Peng (US 20210405238 A1) discloses/teaches:
A system (Figs. 1 and 13, item 112 – “computing device”) for characterizing a subsurface region ([0023], [0071]-[0072]: a computing device is used for correlating strata across well logs obtained in a subterranean formation), the system comprising:
one or more physical processors (Fig. 13, item 1304 – “processing device”) configured by machine-readable instructions ([0071]-[0073]: computing device includes a processing device that executes instructions stored in memory) to:
obtain well information, the well information defining a group of wells (Fig. 1, item 100 – “well system”) within a region of interest (Fig. 1, item 104 – “subterranean formation”), the group of wells including multiple wells (Fig. 1, items 102 – ‘wellbore’; [0021]-[0024], [0033]: logging tools (Fig. 1, items 110) in wellbores are used to measure properties of the subterranean formation and generate well logs (see Fig. 2) which are communicated to the computing device for processing (see also [0074]));
obtain boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells, individual scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells determined based on propagation of boundaries of a single well in the group of wells to other wells in the group of wells ([0028]-[0029], [0039]: well logs are analyzed to identify strata (boundary locations) across multiple well logs and correlate (propagate) the strata to one another (see Fig. 2; see also [0024]-[0027]); based on the combination of well logs and the computer application, the examiner submits that multiple strata scenarios may be evaluated in order to accurately correlate the strata);
select a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well ([0032], [0036]: wellbores of interest are determined for receiving wellbore information for analysis (see [0033]-[0034]); based on the combination of well logs and the computer application, the examiner submits that multiple strata scenarios may be evaluated in order to accurately correlate the strata within wellbores of interest); and
identify, within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, a top-and-base boundary pair within the target interval, the top-and-base boundary pair including a top boundary and a bottom boundary, the top-and-base boundary pair defining a package of interest, wherein a first top-and-base boundary pair is identified within the target interval within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second top-and-base boundary pair is identified within the target interval within the second scenario of boundary locations, the first top-and-base boundary pair different from the second top-and-base boundary pair, the first top-and-base boundary pair defining a first package of interest within the first scenario of boundary locations and the second top-and-base boundary pair defining a second package of interest within the second scenario of boundary locations, the first package of interest different from the second package of interest for the target interval ([0029], [0040]-[0043]: software-based correlation of strata is corrected using user input regarding a stratum (package of interest) (see Fig. 3); based on the combination of well logs and the computer application, the examiner submits that multiple strata scenarios may be evaluated in order to accurately correlate the strata within the wellbores of interest).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determine thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second subsurface property of the second thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the second scenario of boundary locations; and
determine the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary location provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 11.
Peng (US 20210405238 A1) discloses/teaches:
A method (Fig. 5) for characterizing a subsurface region ([0001], [0018]: correlation of strata across well logs obtained in a subterranean formation is presented), the method comprising:
obtaining well information (Fig. 5, item 504), the well information defining a group of wells (Fig. 1, item 100 – “well system”) within a region of interest (Fig. 1, item 104 – “subterranean formation”), the group of wells including multiple wells (Fig. 1, items 102 – ‘wellbore’; [0021]-[0024], [0033]: logging tools (Fig. 1, items 110) in wellbores are used to measure properties of the subterranean formation and generate well logs (see Fig. 2) which are communicated to a computing device for processing (see also [0074]));
obtaining boundary information, the boundary information defining scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells, the scenarios of boundary locations including a first scenario of boundary locations and a second scenario of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within a target well for the group of wells, individual scenarios of boundary locations within the group of wells determined based on propagation of boundaries of a single well in the group of wells to other wells in the group of wells ([0028]-[0029], [0039]: well logs are analyzed to identify strata (boundary locations) across multiple well logs and correlate (propagate) the strata to one another (see Fig. 2; see also [0024]-[0027]); based on the combination of well logs and the computer application, the examiner submits that multiple strata scenarios may be evaluated in order to accurately correlate the strata)
selecting a target interval of the target well for the group of wells, the target interval of the target well including an interval of the target well with variability of boundary locations across different scenarios of boundary locations, wherein the first scenario of boundary location and the second scenario of boundary locations include different numbers or different placements of boundaries within the target interval of the target well ([0032], [0036]: wellbores of interest are determined for receiving wellbore information for analysis (see [0033]-[0034]); based on the combination of well logs and the computer application, the examiner submits that multiple strata scenarios may be evaluated in order to accurately correlate the strata within wellbores of interest); and
identifying, within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, a top-and-base boundary pair within the target interval, the top-and-base boundary pair including a top boundary and a bottom boundary, the top-and-base boundary pair defining a package of interest, wherein a first top-and-base boundary pair is identified within the target interval within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second top-and-base boundary pair is identified within the target interval within the second scenario of boundary locations, the first top-and-base boundary pair different from the second top-and-base boundary pair, the first top-and-base boundary pair defining a first package of interest within the first scenario of boundary locations and the second top-and-base boundary pair defining a second package of interest within the second scenario of boundary locations, the first package of interest different from the second package of interest for the target interval ([0029], [0040]-[0043]: software-based correlation of strata is corrected using user input regarding a stratum (package of interest) (see Fig. 3); based on the combination of well logs and the computer application, the examiner submits that multiple strata scenarios may be evaluated in order to accurately correlate the strata within the wellbores of interest).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determining thickness, presence, or quality of a reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein first thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the first scenario of boundary locations and a second subsurface property of the second thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir is determined within the second scenario of boundary locations; and
determining the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the region of interest based on the thickness, presence, or quality of the reservoir in the package of interest within the individual scenarios of boundary locations, wherein use of different packages of interest for the target interval from different scenarios of boundary location provides uncertainty assessment of the reservoir associated with subsurface heterogeneity predictions”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857