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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claims recite: “A system, comprising: memory to store computer executable instructions; and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the memory, that execute the computer executable instructions to implement: a well trajectory evaluator … a perforation event analyzer…” (claim 1); “a dataframe generator” (claim 3); “a distortion analyzer” (claim 5); “ a zone logger” and “an intersection checker” (claim 6); “a perforation checker” and “a perforation checker” (claim 7); “ a correction engine” (claim 8).
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation:
Specification paragraph [0024], [0027], [0031], [0033], [0057], and [0090] of PG PUB states:
[0024] FIG. 1 illustrates a non-limiting example system 100 that can comprise the one or more data assurance devices 102 in accordance with one or more embodiments described herein. In various embodiments, the one or more data assurance devices 102 (e.g., a server, a desktop computer, a laptop, a hand-held computer, a programmable apparatus, a minicomputer, a mainframe computer, an Internet of things (“IoT”) device, and/or the like) can be operably
coupled to (e.g., communicate with) a plurality of data sources 104 via one or more networks 106.
[0027] As shown in FIG. 1, the data assurance device 102 can include a simulation engine 110, a well trajectory evaluator 112, and/or a perforation event analyzer 114…. For example, the well trajectory evaluator 112 can comprise a dataframe generator 208, inconsistency checker 210, and/or distortion analyzer 212. Additionally, the computer readable storage media 204 can store trajectories dataframes 216, difference dataframes 217, and/or data consistency reports 218.
[0031] As shown in FIG. 2, the one or more data assurance devices 102 can comprise one or more processing units 202 and/or computer readable storage media 204….
[0033] The one or more computer readable storage media 204 can include,…. program modules, executable packages of software, and/or the like.
[0057] In accordance with various embodiments described herein, the perforation event analyzer 114 can perform one or more data quality assurance checks 116 on well perforation events modeled in the one or more subsurface reservoir simulations. As shown in FIG. 5, the perforation event analyzer 114 can comprise zone logger 502, intersection checker 504, perforation checker 506, conditional logic engine 508, and/or correction engine 510….
[0090] A number of program modules may be stored in drives and RAM 1010, including operating system 1032, one or more application programs 1034, other program modules 1036
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 7-8, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 7-8, 13-14, and 19-20, they recite the limitation “erroneous perforation event” which is vague and indefinite since "erroneous" does not set a range.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-9 recite an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor which is a statutory category of invention. The claim 10-15 recite steps or acts including validating well attribute data for the subsurface reservoir simulation model; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claims 16-20 are directed to a “program product for performing a well trajectory data consistency check and a perforation event consistency check, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions embodied therewith, the computer executable instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to”, and a computer program is claimed in a process where the computer is executing the computer program's instructions, the claim is a process claim which is statutory.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claims 1, 10, and 16 recite:
validating well trajectory data for a subsurface reservoir simulation model by comparing a difference between sets of deviation survey data to a defined trajectory tolerance (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
validating well attribute data for the subsurface reservoir simulation model via conditional logic that analyzes the position of a perforation event along a well trajectory in relation to a targeted geographical zone (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “A system, comprising: memory to store computer executable instructions; and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the memory, that execute the computer executable instructions to implement: a well trajectory evaluator … a perforation event analyzer…” (claim 1), “a dataframe generator” (claim 3), “dataframe” (claim 3, 11 and 17), “a distortion analyzer” (claim 5), “ a zone logger” and “an intersection checker” (claim 6), “a perforation checker” and “a perforation checker” (claim 7), “ a correction engine” (claim 8), and “A computer program product for performing a well trajectory data consistency check and a perforation event consistency check, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions embodied therewith, the computer executable instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to:” (Claim 16) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer”/ “processor” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional elements of “well trajectory data for a subsurface reservoir simulation model”, “targeted geographical zone”, and “dataframe” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system, comprising: memory to store computer executable instructions; and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the memory, that execute the computer executable instructions to implement: a well trajectory evaluator … a perforation event analyzer…” (claim 1), “a dataframe generator”, “dataframe” (claim 3, 11 and 17), “a distortion analyzer” (claim 5), “ a zone logger” and “an intersection checker” (claim 6), “a perforation checker” and “a perforation checker” (claim 7), “ a correction engine” (claim 8), and “A computer program product for performing a well trajectory data consistency check and a perforation event consistency check, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions embodied therewith, the computer executable instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to:” (Claim 16) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The additional elements of “well trajectory data for a subsurface reservoir simulation model” and “ targeted geographical zone” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-18 recite:
(Claim 2) wherein a first set of deviation survey data is supplied by a first data source, and wherein a second set of deviation survey data is supplied by a second data source. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
(Claim 3, 11 and 17) further comprising: a dataframe generator configured to generate a first trajectories dataframe that defines the well trajectory by extracting a first set of parameters from the first set of deviation survey data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use), where the dataframe generator is further configured to generate a second trajectories dataframe that defines the well trajectory by extracting a second set of parameters from the second set of deviation survey data (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
(Claim 4, 11 and 17) wherein the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters define three dimensional coordinates and measured depth of points where the well trajectory intersects grid horizons of the subsurface reservoir simulation model (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use).
(Claim 5, 12 and 18) further comprising: a distortion analyzer configured to calculate a dogleg severity attribute for the well trajectory (a mathematical concept and a mental process)
and compares the dogleg severity attribute to a defined tolerance to determine whether the well trajectory is distorted (a mathematical concept and a mental process).
(Claim 6 and 13) further comprising: a zone logger configured to label data points along the well trajectory based on a geological zone in which the data points are positioned (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process); and an intersection checker configured to determine whether the well trajectory intersects the targeted geographical zone. (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process)
(Claim 7, 14 and 19) further comprising: a perforation checker configured to calculate a minimum measured depth and a maximum measured depth of the perforation event along the well trajectory (a mathematical concept and a mental process); and a conditional logic engine configured to detect an erroneous perforation event portion and classify the erroneous perforation event portion as a type of perforation inconsistency based on the conditional logic. (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process)
(Claim 8, 15 and 20) further comprising: a correction engine configured to execute a predefined correction operation that remedies the erroneous perforation event portion, wherein the predefined correction operation adjusts the minimum measured depth of the perforation event, the maximum measured depth of the perforation event, or a combination thereof (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process), and wherein the predefined correction operation is associated with the type of perforation inconsistency (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
(Claim 9) wherein the well trajectory data and the well attribute data is validated prior to generation of the subsurface reservoir simulation model. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Nuaim et al. (US 20150185361 A1).
As per Claim 1,10 and 16, Al-Nuaim et al. discloses a system/method/computer program product for performing a well trajectory data consistency check and a perforation event consistency check (Fig. 1 & 11, [0024]-[0026]), the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions embodied therewith, the computer executable instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to (Fig. 1 & 11, [0024]-[0026]): memory to store computer executable instructions ([0062] “The apparatus 130 can include a data quality analyzing machine 131 having a processor 133, memory 135 coupled to the processor 133 to store software and database records therein”); and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the memory, that execute the computer executable instructions to implement ([0062] “The apparatus 130 can include a data quality analyzing machine 131 having a processor 133, memory 135 coupled to the processor 133 to store software and database records therein”):
a well trajectory evaluator configured to validate well trajectory data for a subsurface reservoir simulation model by comparing a difference between sets of deviation survey data to a defined trajectory tolerance ( [0015] “convert the seismic survey data into reservoir data, the reservoir data including at least well top location data, grid horizon data, and well trajectory position data.”, [0021]-[0022] “receiving well completion location data describing the well completion location of each of the plurality of well completions for each of the plurality of wells, and production logging tool data containing production zone information for each of the plurality of wells, and performing an automated verification of the well completion event location of each of the plurality of well completions against the production logging tool data,”, ”production logging tool data contains saturation information for each of a plurality of consecutive well log depth zones for each of the plurality of wells.”, [0057] “alternatively verify well trajectories 61…within selected (e.g., preselected) tolerances …. The tolerances can be based on a threshold distance value provided by the simulation engineer.”, [0059] “verify well completions 81 are correctly located by verifying they share the same depth zone as the assigned perforation events 71 (block 28, FIG. 1)., [0060] “verify well completions 81 are correctly located by comparing their location with a certain well log depth zone 91 associated with well log data 93 (illustrated graphically in FIG. 9) indicating a well completion 81 (block 29, FIG. 1). Specifically, according to the exemplary configuration, the tool can check if the well completions events 81 are located correctly by comparing them against production logging tool (PLT) wells logs. The well completions events 81 should honor the PLT depth zone 91 within selected (e.g., preselected) tolerances or other criteria as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The tolerances can be based on a discrete depth, range of depth values, or a depth zone 91, provided by the simulation engineer.”); and
a perforation event analyzer configured to validate well attribute data for the subsurface reservoir simulation model via conditional logic that analyzes the position of a perforation event along a well trajectory in relation to a targeted geographical zone ([0013] “verifying well trajectories are correctly located by comparing them with corresponding sets of well top locations and by identifying whether they intersect their assigned perforation events, verifying well completions are correctly located by identifying whether they share a same depth zone as assigned perforation events, and by comparing their location with a certain well log depth zone associated with well log data indicating the location of the respective well completion, and validating well completion events temporally with observed liquid flow rate data.”, [0059] “verify well completions 81 are correctly located by verifying they share the same depth zone as the assigned perforation events 71 (block 28, FIG. 1).”, [0060] “verify well completions 81 are correctly located by comparing their location with a certain well log depth zone 91 associated with well log data 93 (illustrated graphically in FIG. 9) indicating a well completion 81 (block 29, FIG. 1). Specifically, according to the exemplary configuration, the tool can check if the well completions events 81 are located correctly by comparing them against production logging tool (PLT) wells logs. The well completions events 81 should honor the PLT depth zone 91 within selected (e.g., preselected) tolerances or other criteria as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The tolerances can be based on a discrete depth, range of depth values, or a depth zone 91, provided by the simulation engineer.”)
As per Claim 2, Al-Nuaim et al. discloses wherein a first set of deviation survey data is supplied by a first data source ([0015] “convert the seismic survey data into reservoir data, the reservoir data including at least well top location data, grid horizon data, and well trajectory position data.”), and wherein a second set of deviation survey data is supplied by a second data source ([0021]-[0022] “the production logging tool data”, “well log”).
As per Claim 3, 11 and 17, Al-Nuaim et al. discloses further comprising:
a dataframe generator configured to generate a first trajectories dataframe that defines the well trajectory by extracting a first set of parameters from the first set of deviation survey data ([0011] “create reservoir data and to transform the reservoir data so as to simulate a 3D reservoir model”, [0015] “convert the seismic survey data into reservoir data, the reservoir data including at least well top location data, grid horizon data, and well trajectory position data.”),
where the dataframe generator is further configured to generate a second trajectories dataframe that defines the well trajectory by extracting a second set of parameters from the second set of deviation survey data ([0011] “create reservoir data and to transform the reservoir data so as to simulate a 3D reservoir model”, [0021]-[0022] “receiving well completion location data describing the well completion location of each of the plurality of well completions for each of the plurality of wells, and production logging tool data containing production zone information for each of the plurality of wells, and performing an automated verification of the well completion event location of each of the plurality of well completions against the production logging tool data,”, ”production logging tool data contains saturation information for each of a plurality of consecutive well log depth zones for each of the plurality of wells.”).
As per Claim 4, 11 and 17, Al-Nuaim et al. discloses wherein the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters define three dimensional coordinates and measured depth of points where the well trajectory intersects grid horizons of the subsurface reservoir simulation model (Fig. 3 & 6, [0054]-[0056] “grid horizons 41 in three-dimensions.”).
As per Claim 6 and 13, Al-Nuaim et al. teaches a zone logger configured to label data points along the well trajectory based on a geological zone in which the data points are positioned ([0067]-[0068] “well tops 43 identifying depth of a geological layer corresponding with the respective grid horizon”, “each well top location 43 can define an entry position of an associated well of a plurality of wells through a corresponding geologic layer, and each set of at least two well top locations 43 can define the well trajectory position of the well trajectory 61 of the associated well extending therebetween.”); and
an intersection checker configured to determine whether the well trajectory intersects the targeted geographical zone ([0058] “verifying intersection with the location of assigned grids 71, e.g., perforation events (block 27, FIG. 1).”).
As per Claim 9, Al-Nuaim et al. teaches wherein the well trajectory data and the well attribute data is validated prior to generation of the subsurface reservoir simulation model ([0013] “providing automated well completion and reservoir grid data quality assurance for a reservoir simulation”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Nuaim et al. (US 20150185361 A1) as applied to claim 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Hiu et al. (US 20190318021 A1).
As per Claim 5 and 12, Al-Nuaim et al. fails to teach explicitly further comprising: a distortion analyzer configured to calculate a dogleg severity attribute for the well trajectory and compares the dogleg severity attribute to a defined tolerance to determine whether the well trajectory is distorted.
Hiu et al. teaches further comprising: a distortion analyzer configured to calculate a dogleg severity attribute for the well trajectory and compares the dogleg severity attribute to a defined tolerance to determine whether the well trajectory is distorted ([0104]-[0121] “two consecutive trajectory points, DogLeg Severity can be calculated” “A DogLeg Severity value that exceeds a threshold value of 50 has been determined to flag the most suspicious of well trajectory curvatures.”).
Al-Nuaim et al. and Hiu et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for well data validation and quality checking.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Hiu et al. into Al-Nuaim et al.’s invention for purpose of assuring the well data quality to provide a method for proactive validation and cross-checking of foundational well data to ensure data integrity in plan a drilling trajectory to avoid damage to drill bits, avoid getting the drill stuck, and to minimize casing wear-out and torque/drag (Hiu et. al.: [0002], [0105]).
As per Claim 18, Nuaim et al. teaches wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:… label data points along the well trajectory based on a geological zone in which the data points are positioned ([0067]-[0068] “well tops 43 identifying depth of a geological layer corresponding with the respective grid horizon”, “each well top location 43 can define an entry position of an associated well of a plurality of wells through a corresponding geologic layer, and each set of at least two well top locations 43 can define the well trajectory position of the well trajectory 61 of the associated well extending therebetween.”); and determine whether the well trajectory intersects the targeted geographical zone ([0058] “verifying intersection with the location of assigned grids 71, e.g., perforation events (block 27, FIG. 1).”).
Nuaim et al. fails to teach explicitly calculate a dogleg severity attribute for the well trajectory and compares the dogleg severity attribute to a defined tolerance to determine whether the well trajectory is distorted.
Hiu et al. teaches further comprising: a distortion analyzer configured to calculate a dogleg severity attribute for the well trajectory and compares the dogleg severity attribute to a defined tolerance to determine whether the well trajectory is distorted ([0104]-[0121] “two consecutive trajectory points, DogLeg Severity can be calculated” “A DogLeg Severity value that exceeds a threshold value of 50 has been determined to flag the most suspicious of well trajectory curvatures.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 7-8, 14-15, and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject matter: “detecting an erroneous perforation event portion and classify the erroneous perforation event portion as a type of perforation inconsistency based on the conditional logic”
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Energistics (“Completion Data-object Usage Guide”) teaches the limitation determining a minimum measured depth and a maximum measured depth of the perforation event along the well trajectory by generating perforation settings including measured depths at the bottom and top of a perforation intervals for well completion to support the exchange of data describing the completion equipment inside a well.
Al-Nuaim et al. (US 20150185364 A1)
Ding (US 20200226311 A1)
Bhardwaj et al. (US 20200319368 A1)
Pickering (“Improved Reservoir Characterization by Incorporating Geodetic Data in a Western Kazakhstan Oilfield”)
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188