DETAILED ACTION
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method to obtain at least one physical property of a subsurface volume of a hydrocarbon reservoir over time, the subsurface volume comprising a porous medium containing at least one fluid, the method being carried out by a system configured to obtain at least one physical property of a subsurface volume of a hydrocarbon reservoir over time, said method comprising:
obtaining observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time,
mapping a location of at least one observed fluid front over time from the observed data,
obtaining simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time using at least one reservoir model,
mapping a location of at least one simulated fluid front over time from the simulated data,
obtaining simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator,
computing a cost function representing a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data by calculating at least one shortest distance among a plurality of distances along a corresponding plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines, each of said simulated fluid flow streamlines connecting a same first location of the observed fluid front to a same second location of the simulated fluid front,
minimizing said cost function,
obtaining the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time.
Claim 13 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A system for obtaining at least one physical property of a subsurface volume of a hydrocarbon reservoir over time, said system being configured to:
obtain observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time,
map a location of at least one observed fluid front over time from the observed data,
obtain simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time using at least one reservoir model,
map a location of at least one simulated fluid front over time from the simulated data,
obtain simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator,
compute a cost function representing a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data by calculating at least one shortest distance among a plurality of distances along a corresponding plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines, each of said simulated fluid flow streamlines connecting a same first location of the observed fluid front to a same second location of the simulated fluid front,
minimize said cost function,
obtain the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the system, as the system could broadly be interpreted a computer, computer product, or computer system as described in the specification, does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of obtaining the observed data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
While the limitation in relation to “obtaining simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator” was highlighted as part of the claimed abstracted idea, i.e. as data values can be obtained by performing flow simulations calculations, the limitation could also be viewed as insignificant extrasolution data activity if the step is interpreted as merely receiving such data. The claim does not clearly specify if the obtaining is receiving data from a separate device that is flow simulator or if the flow simulator is an algorithm, that is used to determine/obtain the simulated data.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-16 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Claim 15 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to “software per se”. “Software per se” is not directed to a statutory category (see 2106.03). A “computer program product”, by its definition, can refers to a software solution, i.e. a software program.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretz (Fluid Front History Matching Using 4D Seismic and Streamline Simulation) in view of Bergey (US 20150369937).
Regarding claim 1, Kretz discloses a method to obtain at least one physical property of a subsurface volume of a hydrocarbon reservoir over time (see Title and page 1, Abstract second paragraph and introduction first paragraph: fluid front history matching, used to obtain time-lapse flow properties associated with 4D seismic survey of a reservoir), the subsurface volume comprising a porous medium containing at least one fluid (see page 1 Abstract second paragraph and right column first and last paragraph: discusses porosity of the reservoir model, i.e. medium is a porous medium, analyzes fluid fronts, such as gas-oil, oil-water, i.e. reservoir contains at least one fluid), the method including obtaining at least one physical property of a subsurface volume of a hydrocarbon reservoir over time (see page 1 Abstract second paragraph and right column last paragraph, and page 2 left column 3rd and 6th paragraphs: 4D seismic survey, used to map an observed fluid front, claim does not define the property, it could be the observed fluid front or the physical property values from the 4D seismic survey itself), said method comprising:
obtaining observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time (see page 1 Abstract second paragraph and right column last paragraph, and page 2 left column 3rd and 6th paragraphs: 4D seismic survey, used to map an observed fluid front, the 4D seismic data is observed data representative of the fluid front, i.e. fluid saturation in the subsurface),
mapping a location of at least one observed fluid front over time from the observed data (see Figs. 1 and 2: discloses a map of an observed fluid front over time; and see page 1 right column last paragraph and page 2 Fluid front extraction from seismic first paragraph: extracts fluid fronts from the 4D seismic data/observed data),
obtaining simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time using at least one reservoir model (see Figs. 1 and 2, page 2, last paragraph, and page 3 Fluid Front History Matching: matches observed fluid front to a simulated fluids front, i.e. an obtained simulated fluid front),
mapping a location of at least one simulated fluid front over time from the simulated data (see Figs. 1 and 2: discloses a map that includes a simulated fluid front and a one map with a plurality of simulated fluid fronts over time),
obtaining simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator (see Figs. 1 and 2: disclosed maps include flow streamlines representing a flow over time; see page 2 right column first two paragraphs and left column 3rd paragraph: streamline is obtained using a flow simulator, streamline associated with time of flight, i.e. streamline is representative of fluid flow in the subsurface volume over time),
performing history matching in relation to a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data associated with the fluid flow streamlines, each of said simulated fluid flow streamlines connecting a same first location of the observed fluid front to a same second location of the simulated fluid front (see Fig. 1 and 2: disclose streamlines connecting corresponding locations with respect to an observed and simulated fluid front, as broadly interpreted the intersecting locations are representative of a first same location on the observed fluid front and a second same location on the simulated fluid front, claim does not expressly define what makes the points considered to be a same first and a same second location, and the interpretation aligns with the figures disclosed in the applicant’s specification; see Title and page 2 left column: fluid front history matching with streamlines)
obtaining the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time (see page 2 right column 3rd paragraph and page 4 results second paragraph: the basic idea is to modify a given set of flow properties (e.g. porosity, permeability, cell volume ... ) along the streamlines so that the computed fluid front, coincide with the observed fluid fronts derived from 4D seismic, i.e. obtains calibrated fluid flow properties with respect the 4D time lapse measurements).
Kretz does not expressly disclose wherein the method is a method being carried out by a system configured to implement the method;
computing a cost function representing a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data by calculating at least one shortest distance among a plurality of distances along a corresponding plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines, and
minimizing said cost function.
Bergey discloses wherein a method of history matching reservoir data wherein the method is a method being carried out by a system configured to implement the method (see paragraphs 0009, 0018, and 0077: history matching method, computer system performs the method of the invention);
computing a cost function representing a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data by calculating at least one shortest distance among a plurality of distances between observed and simulated fluid front locations (see paragraphs 0005, 0063, and claims 1, 12, and 15: discloses minimizing the calculated mismatch, i.e. difference between observed and simulated front locations, when determining the differences between observed and simulated front locations, one of the determined distances would naturally include the recited shortest distance), and
minimizing said cost function (see claims 1, 12, and 15: minimize the calculated mismatch).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. minimizing the calculated mismatch between the observed and simulated front locations, for the advantageous of using known techniques to iteratively adjust model parameters until the error in the model is minimized, i.e. accuracy of the parameters is maximized. Once modified, i.e. modifying Kretz to implement determining the difference between observed and simulated front locations as taught by Bergey, the modification would meet the limitations of wherein the distances correspond to the plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines as the observed and simulated front locations being compared/matched in Kretz are ones along the plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines.
Regarding claim 13, Kretz discloses a method for obtaining at least one physical property of a subsurface volume of a hydrocarbon reservoir over time (see Title and page 1, Abstract second paragraph and introduction first paragraph: fluid front history matching, used to obtain time-lapse flow properties associated with 4D seismic survey of a reservoir), the method comprising steps to:
obtain observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time (see page 1 Abstract second paragraph and right column last paragraph, and page 2 left column 3rd and 6th paragraphs: 4D seismic survey, used to map an observed fluid front, the 4D seismic data is observed data representative of the fluid front, i.e. fluid saturation in the subsurface),
map a location of at least one observed fluid front over time from the observed data (see Figs. 1 and 2: discloses a map of an observed fluid front over time; and see page 1 right column last paragraph and page 2 Fluid front extraction from seismic first paragraph: extracts fluid fronts from the 4D seismic data/observed data),
obtain simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time using at least one reservoir model (see Figs. 1 and 2, page 2, last paragraph, and page 3 Fluid Front History Matching: matches observed fluid front to a simulated fluids front, i.e. an obtained simulated fluid front),
map a location of at least one simulated fluid front over time from the simulated data (see Figs. 1 and 2: discloses a map that includes a simulated fluid front and a one map with a plurality of simulated fluid fronts over time),
obtain simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator (see Figs. 1 and 2: disclosed maps include flow streamlines representing a flow over time; see page 2 right column first two paragraphs and left column 3rd paragraph: streamline is obtained using a flow simulator, streamline associated with time of flight, i.e. streamline is representative of fluid flow in the subsurface volume over time),
perform history matching in relation to a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data associated with the fluid flow streamlines, each of said simulated fluid flow streamlines connecting a same first location of the observed fluid front to a same second location of the simulated fluid front (see Fig. 1 and 2: disclose streamlines connecting corresponding locations with respect to an observed and simulated fluid front, as broadly interpreted the intersecting locations are representative of a first same location on the observed fluid front and a second same location on the simulated fluid front, claim does not expressly define what makes the points considered to be a same first and a same second location, and the interpretation aligns with the figures disclosed in the applicant’s specification; see Title and page 2 left column: fluid front history matching with streamlines)
obtain the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time (see page 2 right column 3rd paragraph and page 4 results second paragraph: the basic idea is to modify a given set of flow properties (e.g. porosity, permeability, cell volume ... ) along the streamlines so that the computed fluid front, coincide with the observed fluid fronts derived from 4D seismic, i.e. obtains calibrated fluid flow properties with respect the 4D time lapse measurements).
Kretz does not expressly disclose a system said system being configured to implement the method;
computing a cost function representing a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data by calculating at least one shortest distance among a plurality of distances along a corresponding plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines, and
minimizing said cost function.
Bergey discloses a system said system being configured to implement the method (see paragraphs 0009, 0018, and 0077: history matching method, computer system performs the method of the invention);
computing a cost function representing a mismatch between the observed data and the simulated data by calculating at least one shortest distance among a plurality of distances between observed and simulated fluid front locations (see paragraphs 0005, 0063, and claims 1, 12, and 15: discloses minimizing the calculated mismatch, i.e. difference between observed and simulated front locations, when determining the differences between observed and simulated front locations, one of the determined distances would naturally include the recited shortest distance), and
minimizing said cost function (see claims 1, 12, and 15: minimize the calculated mismatch).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. minimizing the calculated mismatch between the observed and simulated front locations, for the advantageous of using known techniques to iteratively adjust model parameters until the error in the model is minimized, i.e. accuracy of the parameters is maximized. Once modified, i.e. modifying Kretz to implement determining the difference between observed and simulated front locations as taught by Bergey, the modification would meet the limitations of wherein the distances correspond to the plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines as the observed and simulated front locations being compared/matched in Kretz are ones along the plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines.
Regarding claim 2, Kertz further discloses wherein the observed data representative of the fluid saturation are obtained from seismic data inversion computed for the subsurface volume over time (see page 1 Abstract second paragraph and right column last paragraph, and page 2 left column 3rd and 6th paragraphs: 4D seismic survey, used to map an observed fluid front, the 4D seismic data is observed data of the subsurface volume over time).
Regarding claim 3, Kertz does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the at least one simulated fluid front are three-dimension surfaces.
Bergey disclose wherein at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the at least one simulated fluid front are three-dimension surfaces (see Abstract and paragraphs 0032-0034: 3D indicators of a front location with respect to cells fo the subsurface volume, i.e. observed fluid front).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. analyzing fluid fronts in three dimensions, for the advantageous benefit of accurately characterizing the subsurface volume, a real three-dimensional structure.
Regarding claim 4, Kertz, previously modified, discloses wherein the distance between observed fluid front points and simulated fluid front points is a curvilinear distance along the fluid flow streamline (see Fig. 2). Kertz was previously modified to determine such distances as discussed in claim, thus the previously modified determined distances would correspond the recited curvilinear distance along the fluid flow streamline.
Regarding claim 5, Kertz further discloses wherein a location of any point of the observed fluid front is connected to a location of a point of the simulated fluid front by a plurality of streamlines of the simulated fluid flow streamlines (see Fig. 1 and 2: discloses streamline used to connect a location between corresponding points on a stream line associated with fluid fronts).
Regarding claim 6, 7, and 16, Kretz does not expressly disclose obtaining a plurality of simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time using a plurality of reservoir models, applying an ensemble-based methods, to evaluate the plurality of reservoir models, and wherein the ensemble-based method is an ensemble Kalman filter.
Bergery discloses obtaining a plurality of simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time using a plurality of reservoir models, applying an ensemble-based methods, to evaluate the plurality of reservoir models, and wherein the ensemble-based method is an ensemble Kalman filter (see Abstract and claims 1, 12, and 17: discloses using an iterative ensemble Kalman filter technique in relation to the disclosed history matching of the observed and simulated saturation parameters over time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, ensemble Kalman fitter history matching technique, for the advantageous benefit of using an accurate history matching technique that is computationally feasible for high-dimensional systems.
Regarding claim 8, Kertz does not expressly disclose wherein mapping the location of at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the location of the at least one simulated fluid front comprises calculating data changes over time respectively on at least one of the observed data and the simulated data in the subsurface volume and applying a data change threshold.
Bergey disclose wherein mapping the location of at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the location of the at least one simulated fluid front comprises calculating data changes over time respectively on at least one of the observed data and the simulated data in the subsurface volume and applying a data change threshold (see Abstract and paragraph 0041-0043 and 0050: discloses front can be detected using a saturation change threshold as 3D indicators, 3D front location signal represent a mapping of the front).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. using a threshold to detect significant saturation changes, for the advantageous benefit using such changes to accurately map the fluid front over time.
Regarding claim 9, Kretz does not expressly disclose wherein the subsurface volume is discretized into a plurality of cells, at least a part of the plurality of cells having at least one observed data value representative of the fluid saturation and at least one simulated data value representative of the fluid saturation.
Bergey discloses wherein the subsurface volume is discretized into a plurality of cells, at least a part of the plurality of cells having at least one observed data value representative of the fluid saturation and at least one simulated data value representative of the fluid saturation (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0040 and 0042: discloses binary classification of cells based on value associated with saturation, observed saturation; see paragraph 0048: simulated saturation values associated with the cells).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. determining saturation values of the cells, for the advantageous benefit using the saturation values to determine and classify the cell in relation so one can effectively identify the fluid front location.
Regarding claim 10, Kretz does not expressly disclose wherein mapping the location of at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the at least one simulated fluid front comprises determining a binary parameter for each cell of the subsurface model chosen among a downstream of the front state and an upstream of the front state using the flow simulator, the fluid front being formed by a plurality of cells located at the interface between the cells having a downstream of the front state and the cells having an upstream of the front state.
Bergey discloses wherein mapping the location of at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the at least one simulated fluid front comprises determining a binary parameter for each cell of the subsurface model chosen among a downstream of the front state and an upstream of the front state using the flow simulator, the fluid front being formed by a plurality of cells located at the interface between the cells having a downstream of the front state and the cells having an upstream of the front state (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0032, 0042, and 0044-0049: discloses analyzing the binary indicator data when deriving front locations and behind front cells and before front cells, i.e. upstream and downstream cells associated with the front).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. determining saturation values of the cells, for the advantageous benefit using the saturation values to determine and classify the cell in relation so one can effectively identify the fluid front location.
Regarding claim 11, Kretz does not expressly disclose wherein the binary parameter of the cell is a downstream of at least one of the front state if the observed data value and simulated data value of said cell is above a threshold or if a data change over time of said cell is above a data change threshold.
Bergey discloses wherein mapping the location of at least one of the at least one observed fluid front and the at least one simulated fluid front comprises determining a binary parameter for each cell of the subsurface model chosen among a downstream of the front state and an upstream of the front state using the flow simulator, the fluid front being formed by a plurality of cells located at the interface between the cells having a downstream of the front state and the cells having an upstream of the front state (see paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. determining saturation values of the cells, for the advantageous benefit using the saturation values to determine and classify the cell in relation so one can effectively identify the fluid front location.
Regarding claim 12, Kretz does not expressly disclose wherein the distance along the streamline is calculated between one cell of the simulated fluid front and one cell of the observed fluid front.
Bergey discloses wherein the distance along the streamline is calculated between one cell of the simulated fluid front and one cell of the observed fluid front (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0059-0065: discloses method of analyzing cells to determine simulated and observed fluid front, further determines distance between simulated and observed front locations, i.e. simulated and observed cell locations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. determining difference values of the front locations between cells, for the advantageous benefit using the performing the required calculation of the disclosed history matching algorithm to improve the reservoir model.
Regarding claim 14, Kertz does not expressly disclose wherein the system is configured to calculate data changes over time respectively on at least one of the observed data representative of the fluid saturation and the simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume and apply a data change threshold.
Bergey disclose wherein the system is configured to calculate data changes over time respectively on at least one of the observed data representative of the fluid saturation and the simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume and apply a data change threshold (see Abstract and paragraph 0042-0043: discloses front can be detected using a saturation change threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. using a threshold to detect significant saturation changes, for the advantageous benefit using such changes to accurately map the fluid front over time.
Regarding claim 15, Kertz does not expressly disclose a computer program product comprising software instructions which, when executed by a computer, carry out the method according to claim 1.
Bergey discloses wherein a method of history matching reservoir data wherein the method is a method being carried out by a system configured to implement the method (see paragraphs 0009, 0018, and 0077: history matching method, computer system performs the method of the invention, computer comprises a computer program, i.e. a computer program product).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kretz with the teachings of Bergey, i.e. using a computer system to implement the method with a computer program, for the advantageous benefit of using a computer to efficiently perform the required computations in a time effective manner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (Iterative Ensemble Kalman Filters for Data Assimilation) discloses an interactive ensemble Kalman filter for data assimilation fo reservoir data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857