DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The amendment filed on May 6, 2026 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because boxes in Fig. 1 should be provided with descriptive text labels (see MPEP 608.02(b)(II) FP 6.22).
. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, “the ensemble-based method” (lines 1-2) should be – the ensemble-based methods --; ”the ensemble-based method is an ensemble Kalman filter” (lines 1-2) should be -- the ensemble-based methods are performed by an ensemble Kalman filter --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13, “minimizing said cost function to identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property” is not recited in the original disclosure. For example, the original specification discloses a minimizing module for minimizing said cost function, a physical property obtaining module for obtaining the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time (paragraph 0010, lines 21-23). However, paragraph 0010 does not disclose the physical property obtaining module is identified based on minimizing said cost function.
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 1-3 are 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 13 recite an abstract idea of “mapping a location of at least one observed fluid front over time from the observed data” (mental process/mathematical concept), “mapping a location of at least one simulated fluid front over time from the simulated data” (mental process/mathematical concept), “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 curvilinear 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” (mathematical concept), “minimizing said cost function to identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
“Obtaining simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time by executing a flow simulator on a reservoir model”, “obtaining simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator”, “obtaining observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time”, “obtaining the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
“Obtaining simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time by executing a flow simulator on a reservoir model”, “obtaining simulated fluid flow streamlines in the subsurface volume over time from a flow simulator”, “obtaining observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time”, “obtaining the at least one physical property of the subsurface model over time” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 6-8, 10-12, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Claims 3 and 9 are not directed to a particular machine to perform and abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites a generic processor which does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 and their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 6-12, and 14-16 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-3 are 6-16 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) and Krebs et al. (US 2011/0000678).
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 by executing a flow simulator on a 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; the streamline simulation is performed on the homogeneous 2D model),
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; distance/mismatch between observed and computed data, page 2, left column, lines 12-13, right column, lines 26-29)
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 curvilinear distances along a corresponding plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines, and
minimizing said cost function to identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property.
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, 0064, 250, 255, Fig. 2, 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.
Further, Krebs et al. (‘678) discloses minimizing said cost function to identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property (minimizing a cost function to generate an updated physical properties model, paragraph 0034, lines 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kretz with minimizing a cost function as disclosed by Kretz et al. (‘678) for the purpose of identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property (generate an updated physical properties model, paragraph 0034).
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 by executing a flow simulator on a 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; the streamline simulation is performed on the homogeneous 2D model),
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 curvilinear distances along a corresponding plurality of simulated fluid flow streamlines, and
minimizing said cost function to identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property.
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.
Further, Krebs et al. (‘678) discloses minimizing said cost function to identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property (minimizing a cost function to generate an updated physical properties model, paragraph 0034, lines 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kretz with minimizing a cost function as disclosed by Kretz et al. (‘678) for the purpose of identify which reservoir model should be used to estimate the physical property (generate an updated physical properties model, paragraph 0034).
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue that “Applicant respectfully disagrees, in particular because the first two steps, which respectfully recite obtaining observed data relative to the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume and of mapping a location of the fluid front, correspond to steps of measuring physical quantities. It is clear that what is claimed are physical recitations of physical systems and physical processes associated with the physical systems. At least these recitations cannot be considered an abstract idea itself as they are physical in nature.”
Examiner position as discussed above is that obtaining observed data representative of a fluid saturation in the subsurface volume is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Mapping a location of the fluid front, read in light of the specification, is directed to a mathematical concept (paragraph 0048). Paragraph 0048 disclose that mapping the location of the observed fluid front 410 comprises calculating 320 data changes over time on the observed data representative of the fluid saturation and applying a data change threshold.
Applicants further argue “[h]owever, even assuming, arguendo, that the claim can somehow be considered abstract under certain case law standards, the independent claim includes a method and system configured to determine an accurate estimation for at least one physical quantity characterizing the hydrocarbon reservoir, such an updated oil and gas fluid flow rates, fluid flow properties, pressure, temperature, for example, or the like. Importantly, this accurate estimation is critical for the assessment and the development of the hydrocarbon reservoir. In particular it allows for a better prediction of the future production of the reservoir where it was previously not possible. Therefore, under the Enfish standard, this means that the claimed invention is not abstract.”
It appears that Applicants are arguing the claims are directed to a technological improvement. If so, the improvement must comply with 2106.05(a). According to MPEP 2106.05(a), “the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” … An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”
Applicants further argue “it is therefore respectfully submitted that claims 1 and 13 cannot be considered abstract as it has clearly defined physical structure which cannot be considered abstract in nature. It is respectfully submitted that the inquiry should stop here and claim 1 should be deemed patentable subject matter.”
Examiner’s position is that Applicants have not shown that the claims are not abstract, i.e., since they are directed are directed to a technological improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicants further argue “[w]hen determining whether a claim recites significantly more than the abstract idea, is important to note that the claimed invention is indeed significantly more than a judicial exception absent a showing that the claim was well-known (i.e., is there an inventive concept/is the claimed invention extremely obvious). The case law (e.g., Alice) that this subject matter test comes from blends aspects of §103 into the consideration as to whether something is patentable subject matter, by hinging the inquiry on simply whether it was SO obvious that it was well-known. As presented below with respect to prior art rejections, it is respectfully submitted that the claimed invention is not obvious. Therefore, even if the claims can somehow be considered directed to a judicial exception, the test for eligibility is still passed on this second part of the test because the claimed invention is not even obvious, let alone "well known" which is clearly an even higher burden to prove. Essentially, based on the case law, the claimed invention must be considered significantly more than the judicial exception itself if it is not obvious. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the claims include eligible subject matter because the claimed invention (1) is not directed to an judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), and, even if considered to be directed to a judicial exception, (2) is significantly more than the judicial exception itself at least because it is not well-known. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims would have been obvious over Kretz (Fluid Front History Matching Using 4D Seismic and Streamline Simulation) in view of Bergey (US 20150369937) and Krebs et al. (US 2011/0000678), as discussed above. Further, under step 2B of the 101 analysis,
“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),
“[o]btaining simulated data representative of the fluid saturation in the subsurface volume over time by executing a flow simulator on a 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; the streamline simulation is performed on the homogeneous 2D model),
“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),
“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) are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Applicants further argue “[i]n view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the claims include eligible subject matter because the claimed invention (1) is not directed to an judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), and, even if considered to be directed to a judicial exception, (2) is significantly more than the judicial exception itself at least because it is not well-known. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application and are without significantly more elements, as discussed above.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants “disagrees that the references of record, either alone or in combination, teach, disclose, or suggest, each and every feature of amended independent claims 1 and 13, with claim 1 partially reproduced below.
Particularly, the references of record fail to disclose or suggest at least:
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 …
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 curvilinear 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.”
Examiner’s position is that claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious over Kretz (Fluid Front History Matching Using 4D Seismic and Streamline Simulation) in view of Bergey (US 20150369937) and Krebs et al. (US 2011/0000678), as discussed above.
Applicants argue “Bergey does not disclose the simulation of streamlines. Thus, the distance used in Bergey cannot be a curvilinear distance along streamlines as recited in the independent claims. Consequently, Bergey does not disclose "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," as recited in claim 1 and as similarly included in claim 13.”
Examiner’s position is that the simulation of streamlines is disclosed by Kretz (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). Kretz further discloses a curvilinear distance (distance between along streamlines between observed and computed/simulated locations/data, page 2, lines 12-13, 26-29) along streamlines (Figs. 1, 2).
Bergey discloses 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). Thus, in view of Bergey, it would have been obvious for the teachings of Kretz (combination of Kretz and Bergey) to calculate at least one shortest distance among a plurality of curvilinear 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.
Applicant’s remaining arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection and discussions above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights