DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 have been presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 04/04/2024, 03/07/2024 and 07/14/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) claim 1 and 12 are directed to a statutory category as a process, and claim 8 is directed to a statutory category as a machine which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-16 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 8 and 12 recite the abstract idea of using coupled mathematical models to simulate and predict carbonate reservoir quality by iteratively computing sediment deposition and diagenetic changes to a computational grid which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Claim 1 limitation and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12 of “initializing a modeling grid and domain representing a sediment textural framework of the subsurface reservoir based on the measured properties;”, is analogous to initializing a numerical matrix, table, or chart of values representing subsurface geological data. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 limitation and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12 of “for a time period, predicting deposition of sediments during the time period using a depositional model;”, constitutes the application of mathematical relationships and equations to simulate a physical system. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 limitation and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12 of “updating the modeling grid and domain based on the predicted deposition;”, constitutes the mathematical manipulation of numerical data structure based on computational output. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 limitation and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12 of “transferring the modeling grid and domain from the depositional model to a diagenetic model;”, constitutes the transfer of a numerical data structure between two computational contexts. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 limitation and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12 of “updating the sediment textural framework of the subsurface reservoir using the diagenetic model to simulate physical and chemical changes to deposited sediments during the time period;”, constitutes the application of thermodynamic equations and chemical kinetic rate equations to numerically predict changes to sediment minerology, porosity and permeability. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 limitation and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12 of “and while additional layers of the subsurface reservoir remain to be incorporated into the modeling grid and domain, updating the time period and repeating the predicting deposition, updating the modeling grid and domain, transferring the modeling grid and domain, and updating the sediment textural framework steps;”, constitutes a mathematical algorithm of computational steps applied repeatedly to a data structure. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
As per claim 8, other than reciting “at least one processor” and “a memory storing instructions”, nothing in the claim element precludes from being a mathematical concept.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 and 13-16 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 8, the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of the system in claims 1, and 8 of “measuring properties of a subsurface reservoir” and “and storing the modeling grid and domain” of Claim 12, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of claims 1, and 8 of “measuring properties of a subsurface reservoir” and “and storing the modeling grid and domain” of Claim 12, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 8 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 8, the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of the system in claims 1, and 8 of “measuring properties of a subsurface reservoir” and “and storing the modeling grid and domain” of Claim 12, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of claims 1, and 8 of “measuring properties of a subsurface reservoir” and “and storing the modeling grid and domain” of Claim 12, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer court case, below can be found evidence provided by the Examiner that provides, based on 2B analysis, how the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for consistency with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer and MPEP 2106.5(d). The use of a drill to perform a test based on the modeling grid and domain is well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, Applicant’s specification merely recites the use of the drill is optional, in their specification and does not describe how the drill is particularly used to perform the test. The Applicant has not proven the application of this drill is anything other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the Applicant is relying on a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling to recognize how the drill would be used to evaluate the test’s effectiveness. l. Therefore, the use of such drill is determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, as shown by Applicant’s own disclosure, the 2B features of the invention are “routine and conventional.”
Dependent claims 2 and 13 further define the subsurface reservoir type as comprising a plurality of sedimentary layers, which merely narrows the field of application of the abstract mathematical modeling method and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 9 and 14 further define the time period as less than 10,000 years, which merely narrows the field of application of the abstract mathematical modeling method and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 specifies the geological setting to which the abstract deposition-diagenetic modeling method is applied. Limiting an abstract mathematical modeling method to a specific geological environment merely narrows the field of application of the abstract mathematical modeling method and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 10 and 15 further specify that the diagenetic model is carbonate facies-dependent, specifying a mathematical model applies different parameters or equations depending on carbonate facies type merely narrows the field of application of the abstract mathematical modeling method and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6, 11, and 16 further specify that the diagenetic model incorporates reactive transport modeling. Reactive transport modeling itself is a system of mathematical equations. Further specifying the particular mathematical framework employed in the abstract diagenetic modeling step merely narrows the field of application of the abstract mathematical modeling method and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 specifies that the modeling grid and domain describe thickness, porosity, permeability, density, and/or seismic velocity of the layers of the subsurface reservoir. Specifying which numerical parameters are stored in the mathematical data structure merely narrows the field of application of the abstract mathematical modeling method and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-16 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the measured properties" in “initializing a modeling grid and domain representing a sediment textural framework of a subsurface reservoir based on the measured properties of the subsurface reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1- 4, 6-9, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by
Hamon et al. (US20180347321A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Hamon discloses,
“A method of predicting carbonate reservoir quality, the method comprising:” (See Hamon paragraph [0048], wherein predicting reservoir quality is the necessary prerequisite to the exploitation scheme).
“Measuring properties of a subsurface reservoir;” (See Hamon paragraph [0049-0050]).
“initializing a modeling grid and domain representing a sediment textural framework of the subsurface reservoir based on the measured properties;” (See Hamon paragraph [0050-0052], wherein it discloses a modeling system in “…These measurements can also allow defining input parameters for the hydrologic model and the diagenetic model according to the invention…” and a discretized computational grid initialized from measured data where each cell carries petrophysical properties discussed in “…the result of a stratigraphic simulation for a time step corresponds to a gridded representation where each cell is at least filled with the following data: mineralogical composition and porosity of the sediments…” constitutes initializing a modeling grid and domain representing sediment textural framework, and “…such as the size of the grains or the density thereof, from the water flux flowing at the ground surface and the local slope of the basin…” constitutes characterizing the sediment texture at the location).
“for a time period, predicting deposition of sediments during the time period using a depositional model;” (See Hamon paragraph [0052-0053] and [0060], wherein simulating sediment deposition over a defined time interval using a computational model is disclosed. Steps 1-3 discuss the input parameters needed for the simulations, “…According to the invention, the result of a stratigraphic simulation for a time step corresponds to a gridded representation where each cell is at least filled with the following data: mineralogical composition and porosity of the sediments…” as the data is used to predict over a time period “…The purpose of this stage is to simulate sedimentary deposits within the basin for the time step considered…”).
“updating the modeling grid and domain based on the predicted deposition;” (See Hamon paragraph [0054-0058], wherein the stratigraphic simulation represents the depositional model and the update grid incorporates the newly predicted sedimentary deposit for the time step in “…Preferably, stages 1) to 3) are repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation. Advantageously, stages 1) to 3) are at least repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation…”).
“transferring the modeling grid and domain from the depositional model to a diagenetic model;” (See Hamon paragraphs [0026-0028], [0046] and [0076], wherein the transfers of the gridded representation (modeling grid and domain) from the stratigraphic simulation (depositional model) to the diagenetic model. Step A generates the gridded representation using the stratigraphical simulator, Step B takes that gridded representation as input to the hydrologic model and Step C takes the output of the hydrologic model and applies the diagenetic model to update the gridded representation).
“updating the sediment textural framework of the subsurface reservoir using the diagenetic model to simulate physical and chemical changes to deposited sediments during the time period;” (See Hamon paragraphs [0008], [0028-0029], [0096], and [0105], wherein Step C, updates the mineralogical composition and porosity in each cell of the gridded representation using a diagenetic model comprising a reaction kinetic model modelling chemical interactions between fluids and mineralogy).
“and while additional layers of the subsurface reservoir remain to be incorporated into the modeling grid and domain, updating the time period and repeating the predicting deposition, updating the modeling grid and domain, transferring the modeling grid and domain, and updating the sediment textural framework steps;” (See Hamon paragraph [0054-0058], wherein “Preferably, stages 1) to 3) are repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation…” each iteration corresponds to one time step = one sedimentary layer being incorporated into the gridded representation. In “…the composition of the fluids at the input of the diagenetic model for the time step being considered corresponds to the fluid composition determined after applying stages 1) to 3) for the previous time step” the results of each iteration are fed into the next).
“and drilling a test well based on the modeling grid and domain.” (See Hamon paragraphs [0121], and [0123], wherein “…notably by drilling the injection and production wells of the exploitation scheme that is determined, and by installing the production infrastructures necessary to the development of the reservoir” discusses drilling a well.)
Regarding Claim 2, Hamon discloses,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the subsurface reservoir comprises a plurality of sedimentary layers.” (See Hamon paragraph [0047], wherein each time step produces a new sedimentary layer deposited on top of previous layers.)
Regarding Claim 3, Hamon discloses,
“The method of claim 2, wherein the time period is associated with one of the plurality of sedimentary layers and is less than 10,000 years.” (See Hamon paragraph [0052], wherein each time period is associated with one sedimentary layer, and paragraph [0008], wherein early diagenesis occurs between the deposition of one sedimentary layer and the deposition of the next overlying layers. In carbonate systems, individual sedimentary layer corresponding to high-frequency depositional cycles which is associated with time periods ranging from hundreds to thousands of years and is less than 10,000 years).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamon discloses,
“The method of claim 2, wherein the subsurface reservoir comprises a marine carbonate ramp.” (See Hamon paragraphs [0048], and [0009] and [0069], wherein the marine cementation constitutes a marine carbonate ramp).
Regarding Claim 6, Hamon discloses,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the diagenetic model incorporates reactive transport modeling.” (See Hamon paragraphs [0028] and [0095-0098], wherein the functional components of a reactive transport are disclosed. The fluid is transported along hydrologic flux paths with kinetic reactions, modifying both the fluid chemistry and the minerology at each cell. The modified fluid chemistry is then carried to the next cell.)
Regarding Claim 7, Hamon discloses,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the modeling grid and domain describe thickness, porosity, permeability, density, and/or seismic velocity of the layers of the subsurface reservoir.” (See Hamon paragraph [0007], [0032], [0047] and [0052] wherein thickness, porosity, permeability and Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio which is used to determine seismic velocity and density is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamon discloses,
“A system for predicting carbonate reservoir quality, the system comprising:” (See Hamon paragraph [0048], wherein the invention is suited for carbonate and evaporite deposits).
“at least one processor;” (See Hamon paragraph [0040]).
“and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” (See Hamon paragraph [0040]).
“measuring properties of a subsurface reservoir;” (See Hamon paragraph [0049-0050]).
“initializing a modeling grid and domain representing a sediment textural framework of the subsurface reservoir based on the measured properties;” (See Hamon paragraph [0050-0052], wherein it discloses a modeling system in “…These measurements can also allow defining input parameters for the hydrologic model and the diagenetic model according to the invention…” and a discretized computational grid initialized from measured data where each cell carries petrophysical properties discussed in “…the result of a stratigraphic simulation for a time step corresponds to a gridded representation where each cell is at least filled with the following data: mineralogical composition and porosity of the sediments…” constitutes initializing a modeling grid and domain representing sediment textural framework, and “…such as the size of the grains or the density thereof, from the water flux flowing at the ground surface and the local slope of the basin…” constitutes characterizing the sediment texture at the location).
“for a time period, predicting deposition of sediments during the time period using a depositional model;” (See Hamon paragraph [0052-0053] and [0060], wherein simulating sediment deposition over a defined time interval using a computational model is disclosed. Steps 1-3 discuss the input parameters needed for the simulations, “…According to the invention, the result of a stratigraphic simulation for a time step corresponds to a gridded representation where each cell is at least filled with the following data: mineralogical composition and porosity of the sediments…” as the data is used to predict over a time period “…The purpose of this stage is to simulate sedimentary deposits within the basin for the time step considered…”).
“updating the modeling grid and domain based on the predicted deposition;” (See Hamon paragraph [0054-0058], wherein the stratigraphic simulation represents the depositional model and the update grid incorporates the newly predicted sedimentary deposit for the time step in “…Preferably, stages 1) to 3) are repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation. Advantageously, stages 1) to 3) are at least repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation…”).
“transferring the modeling grid and domain from the depositional model to a diagenetic model;” (See Hamon paragraphs [0026-0028], [0046] and [0076], wherein the transfers of the gridded representation (modeling grid and domain) from the stratigraphic simulation (depositional model) to the diagenetic model. Step A generates the gridded representation using the stratigraphical simulator, Step B takes that gridded representation as input to the hydrologic model and Step C takes the output of the hydrologic model and applies the diagenetic model to update the gridded representation).
“updating the sediment textural framework of the subsurface reservoir using the diagenetic model to simulate physical and chemical changes to deposited sediments during the time period;” (See Hamon paragraphs [0008], [0028-0029], [0096], and [0105], wherein Step C, updates the mineralogical composition and porosity in each cell of the gridded representation using a diagenetic model comprising a reaction kinetic model modelling chemical interactions between fluids and mineralogy).
“while additional layers of the subsurface reservoir remain to be incorporated into the modeling grid and domain, updating the time period and repeating the predicting deposition, updating the modeling grid and domain, transferring the modeling grid and domain, and updating the sediment textural framework steps.” (See Hamon paragraph [0054-0058], wherein “Preferably, stages 1) to 3) are repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation…” each iteration corresponds to one time step = one sedimentary layer being incorporated into the gridded representation. In “…the composition of the fluids at the input of the diagenetic model for the time step being considered corresponds to the fluid composition determined after applying stages 1) to 3) for the previous time step” the results of each iteration are fed into the next).
Regarding Claim 9, it is rejected under being analogous to Claim 3
“The system of 8, wherein the time period is associated with one of the plurality of sedimentary layers and is less than 10,000 years.”
Regarding Claim 12, Hamon discloses,
“A method of predicting reservoir quality, the method comprising:” (See Hamon paragraph [0048]).
“initializing a modeling grid and domain representing a sediment textural framework of a subsurface reservoir based on the measured properties of the subsurface reservoir;” (See Hamon paragraph [0050-0052], wherein it discloses a modeling system in “…These measurements can also allow defining input parameters for the hydrologic model and the diagenetic model according to the invention…” and a discretized computational grid initialized from measured data where each cell carries petrophysical properties discussed in “…the result of a stratigraphic simulation for a time step corresponds to a gridded representation where each cell is at least filled with the following data: mineralogical composition and porosity of the sediments…” constitutes initializing a modeling grid and domain representing sediment textural framework, and “…such as the size of the grains or the density thereof, from the water flux flowing at the ground surface and the local slope of the basin…” constitutes characterizing the sediment texture at the location).
“for a time period, predicting deposition of sediments during the time period using a depositional model;” (See Hamon paragraph [0052-0053] and [0060], wherein simulating sediment deposition over a defined time interval using a computational model is disclosed. Steps 1-3 discuss the input parameters needed for the simulations, “…According to the invention, the result of a stratigraphic simulation for a time step corresponds to a gridded representation where each cell is at least filled with the following data: mineralogical composition and porosity of the sediments…” as the data is used to predict over a time period “…The purpose of this stage is to simulate sedimentary deposits within the basin for the time step considered…”).
“updating the modeling grid and domain based on the predicted deposition;” (See Hamon paragraph [0054-0058], wherein the stratigraphic simulation represents the depositional model and the update grid incorporates the newly predicted sedimentary deposit for the time step in “…Preferably, stages 1) to 3) are repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation. Advantageously, stages 1) to 3) are at least repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation…”).
“transferring the modeling grid and domain from the depositional model to a diagenetic model;” (See Hamon paragraphs [0026-0028], [0046] and [0076], wherein the transfers of the gridded representation (modeling grid and domain) from the stratigraphic simulation (depositional model) to the diagenetic model. Step A generates the gridded representation using the stratigraphical simulator, Step B takes that gridded representation as input to the hydrologic model and Step C takes the output of the hydrologic model and applies the diagenetic model to update the gridded representation).
“updating the sediment textural framework of the area's subsurface using the diagenetic model to simulate physical and chemical changes to deposited sediments during the time period;” (See Hamon paragraphs [0008], [0028-0029], [0096], and [0105], wherein Step C, updates the mineralogical composition and porosity in each cell of the gridded representation using a diagenetic model comprising a reaction kinetic model modelling chemical interactions between fluids and mineralogy).
“while additional layers of the area's subsurface remain to be incorporated into the modeling grid and domain, updating the time period and repeating the predicting deposition, updating the modeling grid and domain, transferring the modeling grid and domain, and updating the sediment textural framework steps;” (See Hamon paragraph [0054-0058], wherein “Preferably, stages 1) to 3) are repeated for each time step of the stratigraphic simulation…” each iteration corresponds to one time step = one sedimentary layer being incorporated into the gridded representation. In “…the composition of the fluids at the input of the diagenetic model for the time step being considered corresponds to the fluid composition determined after applying stages 1) to 3) for the previous time step” the results of each iteration are fed into the next).
“and storing the modeling grid and domain.” (See Hamon paragraph [0040], wherein storing on a computer device is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 13, it is rejected under being analogous to Claim 2
“The method of claim 12, wherein the subsurface reservoir comprises a plurality of sedimentary layers.”
Regarding Claim 14, it is rejected under being analogous to Claim 3
“The system of 13, wherein the time period is associated with one of the plurality of sedimentary layers and is less than 10,000 years.”
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected under being analogous to Claim 6
“The method of claim 15, wherein the diagenetic model incorporates reactive transport modeling.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Hamon et al. (US20180347321A1)
Frazer et al. (US20200073012A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Hamon discloses,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the diagenetic model .” (See Hamon Abstract).
However, Hamon doesn’t disclose, “is carbonate facies- dependent”.
Therefore, a secondary reference, Frazer discloses,
“is carbonate facies- dependent” (See Frazer paragraph [0042], [0046], wherein the diagenetic change is tied to the composition of specific rock type.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement Frazer’s facies dependent diagenetic model into Hamon’s facies informed grid as both references are directed to improving the accuracy of carbonate reservoir quality prediction by coupling depositional and diagenetic simulation, (See Hamon paragraph [0007] and Frazer paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 10, it is rejected under being analogous to Claim 5
“The system of 8, wherein the diagenetic model is carbonate facies-dependent.”
Regarding Claim 11, it is rejected under being the system counterpart of Claim 6
“The system of 10, wherein the diagenetic model incorporates reactive transport modeling.”
Regarding Claim 15, it is rejected under being analogous to Claim 5
“The system of 13, wherein the diagenetic model is carbonate facies-dependent.”
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
CN 113049471 A; “Recovery Method of Porosity Evolution Process of Carbonate Terrane Sequence Stratum”
BR 112021002211 B1; “METHODS FOR ESTIMATING RESERVOIR STRATIGRAPHY, QUALITY AND CONNECTIVITY”
US 20130297272 A1; “THREE-DIMENSIONAL MULTI-MODAL CORE AND GEOLOGICAL MODELING FOR OPTIMAL FIELD DEVELOPMENT”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHNAZ J. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/MEHNAZ JAREEN SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights