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 .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 12/12/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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, 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-11 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
obtaining geological data for a geological region of interest, wherein the geological data comprises aluminum (Al) data [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
determining, by a computer processor, weathering index data for the geological region of interest using the geological data, wherein the weathering index data describes alterations of detrital minerals to authigenic clay minerals [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
determining, by the computer processor, a plurality of hydrocarbon zones in the geological region of interest using the weathering index data[“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
determining, by the computer processor, a well path in the geological region of interest based on the plurality of hydrocarbon zones [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)]; and
transmitting, by the computer processor, a first command to a first drilling system based on the well path (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function; insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/outputting).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “obtaining”, “computer processor” and “transmitting”. The additional element of “obtaining” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). The additional elements of “computer processor” and “transmitting” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “obtaining” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, the additional element of “transmitting” is not significantly more because the court have found receiving data to be well, understood, routine, and conventional. See: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), for example- i. receiving or transmitting data over network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claims 2-6 and 8-11, the claims fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering] and/or [e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function]; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/outputting].
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2016/0003008 issued to URIBE et al in view of Price et al (J. R. Price, M. A. Velbel, “Chemical weathering indices applied to weathering profiles developed on heterogeneous felsic metamorphic parent rocks”, pgs. 397-416, 2003).
Claim 1. URIBE et al discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining geological data for a geological region of interest, wherein the geological data comprises aluminum (Al) data (See: [0012] In one embodiment, a method is presented for well planning. The method includes obtaining a three dimensional (3D) Earth model representing a subsurface region; determining one or more reservoir targets within the 3D Earth model; defining one or more reservoir segments in the 3D Earth model, wherein each of the reservoir segments pass through at least a portion of one of the target reservoirs);
determining, by the computer processor, a plurality of hydrocarbon zones in the geological region of interest (See: [0039] In one exemplary embodiment, a reservoir segment may include a straight section defined by two points for two reservoir surfaces, as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. In FIGS. 1A and 1B, a modeled representation of a subsurface region of a reservoir is illustrated as a first modeled representation 100 and a second modeled representation 130. Each of these modeled regions 100 and 130 include a first reservoir surface 102 and a second reservoir surface 104. These surfaces 102 and 104 may represent layers of rock that include hydrocarbon fluids, and/or may represent the top and base of a layer or number of layers of rock that include potential hydrocarbon fluids);
determining, by the computer processor, a well path in the geological region of interest based on the plurality of hydrocarbon zones (See: [0039] In one exemplary embodiment, a reservoir segment may include a straight section defined by two points for two reservoir surfaces, as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. In FIGS. 1A and 1B, a modeled representation of a subsurface region of a reservoir is illustrated as a first modeled representation 100 and a second modeled representation 130; [0049] If the reservoir segment is within a specified threshold, the well plan may be created based on the reservoir segments, as shown in block 212. The creation of the well plan may include modeling the well trajectory and/or well pads to determine the well path, which may involve using known techniques. The well path, well site location and pad may be created to limit environmental impact and perform the drilling within the given geological and engineering constraints. As an example, after reservoir segments are set in the desired location, then a common surface location (e.g., pad, drill center, etc.) may be coupled to the reservoir segments. In some applications, the orientation of one or more of those reservoir segments may not be optimal and cannot be drilled from the selected surface location. Accordingly, the reservoir segment may be reoriented to provide a path that may be generated); and
transmitting, by the computer processor, a first command to a first drilling system based on the well path (See: [0068] If the drilling parameters do satisfy the threshold, then an assessment of drilling parameters, such as well completions and/or perforations, as shown in block 522. This may include storing the well plan and/or communicating the well plan for the operations stage. The well plan created from this process is a substantially drill ready before is handed to the drilling engineer or drilling contractor for final approval. As an example, the drilling team may have specific rules that need to be satisfied when building a well path).
URIBE et al does not specify but Price et al discloses determining, by a computer processor, weathering index data for the geological region of interest using the geological data, wherein the weathering index data describes alterations of detrital minerals to authigenic clay minerals (See: Abstract, Among the weathering indices evaluated here, the Weathering Index of Parker (WIP) is the most appropriate for application to weathering profiles on heterogeneous (and homogeneous) parent rock. Because the WIP includes only the highly mobile alkali and alkaline earth elements in its formulation, it yields values that differ greatly from those of the parent rock. In addition, the WIP allows for aluminum mobility, unlike other weathering indices. These characteristics combine to make the Weathering Index of Parker the most applicable index for studying the weathering of heterogeneous metasedimentary rocks. However, the WIP should be applied judiciously, as alkali and alkaline earth metals may be readily depleted during weathering. In addition to reflecting weathering, the Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA), Chemical Index of Weathering (CIW), Plagioclase Index of Alteration (PIA) and Vogt’s Residual Index (V) may be sensitive to subtle geochemical changes such as hydrothermal alteration along a fault and/or alteration at the water table; Table 5, summary of correlation statistics for weathering progress diagram; Table 7 weathering index variability of the water well bedrock relative to the overlying saprolite).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine chemical weathering indices applied to weathering profile as taught by Price et al to reservoir segment evaluation for well planning method of URIBE et al would be to yield greater compositional variations relative to the unweathered bedrock than other elements (Price et al, 7. Summary and conclusions).
Claim 2. Uribe et al discloses transmitting, to a stimulation control system, a second command configured to perform the stimulation operation based on the one or more stimulation parameters. URIBE et al does not specify but Price et al determining a sweet spot within the geological region of interest using the weathering index data (See: Table 7 weathering index variability of the water well bedrock relative to the overlying saprolite); determining one or more stimulation parameters for a stimulation operation at the sweet spot using the weathering index data (See: Table 5, summary of correlation statistics for weathering progress diagram).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine chemical weathering indices applied to weathering profile as taught by Price et al to reservoir segment evaluation for well planning method of URIBE et al would be to yield greater compositional variations relative to the unweathered bedrock than other elements (Price et al, 7. Summary and conclusions).
Claim 4. Price et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining effective porosity data of a plurality of regions in the geological region of interest, wherein the plurality of hydrocarbon zones are determined using the effective porosity data and the weathering index data (See: Abstract, Among the weathering indices evaluated here, the Weathering Index of Parker (WIP) is the most appropriate for application to weathering profiles on heterogeneous (and homogeneous) parent rock. Because the WIP includes only the highly mobile alkali and alkaline earth elements in its formulation, it yields values that differ greatly from those of the parent rock. In addition, the WIP allows for aluminum mobility, unlike other weathering indices. These characteristics combine to make the Weathering Index of Parker the most applicable index for studying the weathering of heterogeneous metasedimentary rocks. However, the WIP should be applied judiciously, as alkali and alkaline earth metals may be readily depleted during weathering. In addition to reflecting weathering, the Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA), Chemical Index of Weathering (CIW), Plagioclase Index of Alteration (PIA) and Vogt’s Residual Index (V) may be sensitive to subtle geochemical changes such as hydrothermal alteration along a fault and/or alteration at the water table; Table 5, summary of correlation statistics for weathering progress diagram; Table 7 weathering index variability of the water well bedrock relative to the overlying saprolite).
Claim 5. Price et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geological data further comprises magnesium (Mg) data, calcium data (Ca), potassium (K) data, and sodium (Na) data, and wherein the weathering index data is based on an elemental ratio of aluminum to a sum of magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium at a predetermined depth interval (See: Table 1; pg. 401 left side column “2.2. Weathering Index (of Parker), Parker’s Weathering Index is based on the proportions of alkali and alkaline earth metals (sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) present. These elements are the most mobile of the major elements, and there is no need to assume that sesquioxide concentration remains ap proximately constant during weathering. The WIP also takes into account the individual mobilities of sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium, based on their bond strengths with oxygen).
Claim 6. Price et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the weathering index data describes changes of magnesium, potassium, and sodium with respect to aluminum among a plurality of grains in the geological region of interest (See: Table 1; pg. 401 left side column “2.2. Weathering Index (of Parker), Parker’s Weathering Index is based on the proportions of alkali and alkaline earth metals (sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) present. These elements are the most mobile of the major elements, and there is no need to assume that sesquioxide concentration remains ap proximately constant during weathering. The WIP also takes into account the individual mobilities of sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium, based on their bond strengths with oxygen).
Claim 7. URIBE et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a drilling operation at a wellbore in the geological region of interest, wherein the drilling operation acquires a plurality of cuttings from drilling fluid circulated in the wellbore during the drilling operation (See: [0037] The present techniques method/workflow can be applied in the creation of a single wellbore or a series of wellbores initialized as reservoir segments with the ability to connect those reservoir segments to a common surface location or drill center after editing the reservoir segment's target locations and orientations. In one or more embodiments, the method for reservoir segment evaluation for the well path planning in a collaborative 3D earth model may include various steps. These steps may include identify a set of reservoirs from a three-dimensional (3D) Earth model; obtaining geographic and geological data and models from the geological analysis and/or reservoir simulations; generating one or more reservoir segments within each one of the reservoirs; evaluating the reservoir segments within each one of the reservoirs based on a potential payout in terms of production of hydrocarbons; updating the reservoir segments via iterate number, inclination, and orientation of reservoir segments to optimize pay out; and identifying well pad location and generating at least one well trajectory through at least one reservoir segment and further evaluating the well pad location and its associated well trajectories based on the potential payout in terms of at least one parameter such as production of hydrocarbons, drilling complexity (e.g., stability of the well path), cost and stability of well planning; [0038] To provide enhancements over conventional methods, the present techniques utilize reservoir segments. The reservoir segments represent a potential drilling pathway for a targeted reservoir region. Reservoir segments differ from typical well paths because the reservoir segments do not represent the complete path and may not connect in any way to a surface location initially. The reservoir segment provides a mechanism to initialize a tangent portion of the well path and the potential completion interval exposed to the reservoir before a complete well is designed; ; and determining cutting data from the plurality of cuttings, wherein a portion of the geological data is based on the cutting data (See: [0028] “Earth model” or “shared earth model” refer to a geometrical/volumetric model of a portion of the earth that may also contain material properties. The model is shared in the sense that it integrates the work of several specialists involved in the model's development (non-limiting examples may include such disciplines as geologists, geophysicists, petrophysicists, well log analysts, drilling engineers and reservoir engineers) who interact with the model through one or more application programs; [0038] To provide enhancements over conventional methods, the present techniques utilize reservoir segments. The reservoir segments represent a potential drilling pathway for a targeted reservoir region. Reservoir segments differ from typical well paths because the reservoir segments do not represent the complete path and may not connect in any way to a surface location initially. The reservoir segment provides a mechanism to initialize a tangent portion of the well path and the potential completion interval exposed to the reservoir before a complete well is designed).
Claim 8. URIBE et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring, using a coring tool, one or more core samples from a wellbore in the geological region of interest; and determining core sample data using the one or more core samples, wherein a portion of the geological data is based on the core sample data (See: [0065] At block 512, the reservoir segments may be verified. This verification may include testing the quality of the location of the reservoir segment(s) in a simulation and/or geologic model to validate their potential as producer or injector candidates. As the reservoir segments are edited, data may be extracted from the reservoir model(s) or seismic and provided to a user via a display or graphical interface to convey certain information regarding the quality of the location within the reservoir. Vertical planes along the well bore with textures of extracted model properties or extracted model properties from the intersection of the well and model displayed as well logs can be used to visualize and further verify the quality of the reservoir segment position. Further, the engineering constraints and geological constraints, such as safe distance to certain geological objects, may also be utilized to verify the reservoir segments. Violations of these constraints may include notification to the user via a display or other suitable indication; 0075] As shown in FIG. 6C, the modeled region 640 includes reservoir segments 626, and 630 that are deviated lines oriented between the surfaces 602 and 604. This modeled region 600 may represent the verification of the reservoir segments. To provide verification, the process may include representative logs (e.g., pseudo logs) and/or vertical planes from geologic data and/or seismic data, which is represented by data planes 642 and 644. The data planes 642 and 644 may include extracted properties from seismic, geologic and/or simulation models. For example, this modeled representation 640 may be the reservoir segments defined in one or more of blocks 206 to 210 of FIG. 2 and/or in one or more of blocks 512 and 514 of FIG. 5).
Claim 9. URIBE et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a plurality of well logs for a plurality of wells in the geological region of interest, and wherein a portion of the geological data is based on the plurality of well logs (See: [0065] At block 512, the reservoir segments may be verified. This verification may include testing the quality of the location of the reservoir segment(s) in a simulation and/or geologic model to validate their potential as producer or injector candidates. As the reservoir segments are edited, data may be extracted from the reservoir model(s) or seismic and provided to a user via a display or graphical interface to convey certain information regarding the quality of the location within the reservoir. Vertical planes along the well bore with textures of extracted model properties or extracted model properties from the intersection of the well and model displayed as well logs can be used to visualize and further verify the quality of the reservoir segment position. Further, the engineering constraints and geological constraints, such as safe distance to certain geological objects, may also be utilized to verify the reservoir segments).
Claim 10. URIBE et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of hydrocarbon zones correspond to a first threshold, a second threshold, and a third threshold, wherein the first threshold corresponding to a predetermined amount of hydrocarbon recoverable without a stimulation operation, wherein the second threshold corresponding to a predetermined amount of hydrocarbon that is recoverable only with a stimulation operation, and wherein the third threshold corresponding to no amount of hydrocarbon recoverable with a stimulation operation (See: [0048] Once the reservoir segments are defined, a cost function may optionally be calculated for the reservoir segments, as shown in block 208. The cost function calculation may be performed for each reservoir segment individually and/or for two or more reservoir segments together. The cost function may be utilized to optimize the wellbore trajectory through the reservoir. The cost function may be based on minimizing net sand or net pay penetrated by the reservoir segment, minimizing the drilling cost and/or maximizing production of the hydrocarbons. Then, a determination is made whether the cost function is within a threshold, as shown in block 210. If the reservoir segment is not within a specified threshold, the reservoir segments may be redefined in block 206. This redefining the reservoir segments may include adjusting the factors utilized to define one or more of the reservoir segments).
URIBE et al does not specify but Price et al discloses weathering index (See: Abstract, Among the weathering indices evaluated here, the Weathering Index of Parker (WIP) is the most appropriate for application to weathering profiles on heterogeneous (and homogeneous) parent rock. Because the WIP includes only the highly mobile alkali and alkaline earth elements in its formulation, it yields values that differ greatly from those of the parent rock. In addition, the WIP allows for aluminum mobility, unlike other weathering indices. These characteristics combine to make the Weathering Index of Parker the most applicable index for studying the weathering of heterogeneous metasedimentary rocks. However, the WIP should be applied judiciously, as alkali and alkaline earth metals may be readily depleted during weathering. In addition to reflecting weathering, the Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA), Chemical Index of Weathering (CIW), Plagioclase Index of Alteration (PIA) and Vogt’s Residual Index (V) may be sensitive to subtle geochemical changes such as hydrothermal alteration along a fault and/or alteration at the water table; Table 5, summary of correlation statistics for weathering progress diagram; Table 7 weathering index variability of the water well bedrock relative to the overlying saprolite).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine chemical weathering indices applied to weathering profile as taught by Price et al to reservoir segment evaluation for well planning method of URIBE et al would be to yield greater compositional variations relative to the unweathered bedrock than other elements (Price et al, 7. Summary and conclusions).
Claim 11. URIBE et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of hydrocarbon zones comprises a first hydrocarbon zone and a second hydrocarbon zone, wherein the first hydrocarbon zone corresponds to a first portion of the geological region of interest comprising a first permeability threshold, and wherein the second hydrocarbon zone corresponds to a second portion of the geological region of interesting comprising a second permeability threshold that is different from the first permeability threshold (See: [0048] Once the reservoir segments are defined, a cost function may optionally be calculated for the reservoir segments, as shown in block 208. The cost function calculation may be performed for each reservoir segment individually and/or for two or more reservoir segments together. The cost function may be utilized to optimize the wellbore trajectory through the reservoir. The cost function may be based on minimizing net sand or net pay penetrated by the reservoir segment, minimizing the drilling cost and/or maximizing production of the hydrocarbons. Then, a determination is made whether the cost function is within a threshold, as shown in block 210. If the reservoir segment is not within a specified threshold, the reservoir segments may be redefined in block 206. This redefining the reservoir segments may include adjusting the factors utilized to define one or more of the reservoir segments).
Claim 12. The instant claim recites substantially same limitation as the above rejected claim 1, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13. URIBE et al discloses the system of claim 12, further comprising: a user device coupled to the stimulation control system, wherein the user device is configured to provide a graphical user interface for presenting the plurality of stimulation parameters (See: [0065] At block 512, the reservoir segments may be verified. This verification may include testing the quality of the location of the reservoir segment(s) in a simulation and/or geologic model to validate their potential as producer or injector candidates. As the reservoir segments are edited, data may be extracted from the reservoir model(s) or seismic and provided to a user via a display or graphical interface to convey certain information regarding the quality of the location within the reservoir. Vertical planes along the well bore with textures of extracted model properties or extracted model properties from the intersection of the well and model displayed as well logs can be used to visualize and further verify the quality of the reservoir segment position. Further, the engineering constraints and geological constraints, such as safe distance to certain geological objects, may also be utilized to verify the reservoir segments. Violations of these constraints may include notification to the user via a display or other suitable indication).
Claim 14. Price et al discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the geological data further comprises magnesium (Mg) data, calcium data (Ca), potassium (K) data, and sodium (Na) data, and wherein the weathering index data is based on an elemental ratio of aluminum to a sum of magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium at a predetermined depth interval (See: Table 1; pg. 401 left side column “2.2. Weathering Index (of Parker), Parker’s Weathering Index is based on the proportions of alkali and alkaline earth metals (sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) present. These elements are the most mobile of the major elements, and there is no need to assume that sesquioxide concentration remains ap proximately constant during weathering. The WIP also takes into account the individual mobilities of sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium, based on their bond strengths with oxygen).
Claim 15. URIBE et al discloses the system of claim 12, further comprising: a logging system comprising a coring tool, wherein one or more core samples are acquired from a wellbore in the geological region of interest using the coring tool, wherein a portion of the geological data is based on core sample data using the one or more core samples (See: [0065] At block 512, the reservoir segments may be verified. This verification may include testing the quality of the location of the reservoir segment(s) in a simulation and/or geologic model to validate their potential as producer or injector candidates. As the reservoir segments are edited, data may be extracted from the reservoir model(s) or seismic and provided to a user via a display or graphical interface to convey certain information regarding the quality of the location within the reservoir. Vertical planes along the well bore with textures of extracted model properties or extracted model properties from the intersection of the well and model displayed as well logs can be used to visualize and further verify the quality of the reservoir segment position. Further, the engineering constraints and geological constraints, such as safe distance to certain geological objects, may also be utilized to verify the reservoir segments. Violations of these constraints may include notification to the user via a display or other suitable indication; 0075] As shown in FIG. 6C, the modeled region 640 includes reservoir segments 626, and 630 that are deviated lines oriented between the surfaces 602 and 604. This modeled region 600 may represent the verification of the reservoir segments. To provide verification, the process may include representative logs (e.g., pseudo logs) and/or vertical planes from geologic data and/or seismic data, which is represented by data planes 642 and 644. The data planes 642 and 644 may include extracted properties from seismic, geologic and/or simulation models. For example, this modeled representation 640 may be the reservoir segments defined in one or more of blocks 206 to 210 of FIG. 2 and/or in one or more of blocks 512 and 514 of FIG. 5).
Claim 17. The instant claim recites substantially same limitation as the above rejected claim 1, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18. Price et al discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the geological data further comprises magnesium (Mg) data, calcium data (Ca), potassium (K) data, and sodium (Na) data, and wherein the weathering index data is based on an elemental ratio of aluminum to a sum of magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium at a predetermined depth interval (See: Table 1; pg. 401 left side column “2.2. Weathering Index (of Parker), Parker’s Weathering Index is based on the proportions of alkali and alkaline earth metals (sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) present. These elements are the most mobile of the major elements, and there is no need to assume that sesquioxide concentration remains ap proximately constant during weathering. The WIP also takes into account the individual mobilities of sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium, based on their bond strengths with oxygen).
Claim 20. URIBE et al discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising: a logging system comprising a coring tool, wherein one or more core samples are acquired from a wellbore in the geological region of interest using the coring tool, wherein a portion of the geological data is based on core sample data using the one or more core samples (See: [0065] At block 512, the reservoir segments may be verified. This verification may include testing the quality of the location of the reservoir segment(s) in a simulation and/or geologic model to validate their potential as producer or injector candidates. As the reservoir segments are edited, data may be extracted from the reservoir model(s) or seismic and provided to a user via a display or graphical interface to convey certain information regarding the quality of the location within the reservoir. Vertical planes along the well bore with textures of extracted model properties or extracted model properties from the intersection of the well and model displayed as well logs can be used to visualize and further verify the quality of the reservoir segment position. Further, the engineering constraints and geological constraints, such as safe distance to certain geological objects, may also be utilized to verify the reservoir segments. Violations of these constraints may include notification to the user via a display or other suitable indication; 0075] As shown in FIG. 6C, the modeled region 640 includes reservoir segments 626, and 630 that are deviated lines oriented between the surfaces 602 and 604. This modeled region 600 may represent the verification of the reservoir segments. To provide verification, the process may include representative logs (e.g., pseudo logs) and/or vertical planes from geologic data and/or seismic data, which is represented by data planes 642 and 644. The data planes 642 and 644 may include extracted properties from seismic, geologic and/or simulation models. For example, this modeled representation 640 may be the reservoir segments defined in one or more of blocks 206 to 210 of FIG. 2 and/or in one or more of blocks 512 and 514 of FIG. 5).
Claims 3, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over URIBE et al and Price et al as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of WO 2021/179288 A1 issued to YAO et al (from IDS filed on 01/12/2023).
Claim 3. Neither URIBE et al not Price et al but YAO et al discloses determining a plurality of elemental logs from one or more wellbores using a plurality of cuttings and an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer, wherein a portion of the geological data is based on the plurality of elemental logs (See: Abstract, (57) Abstract: Drilling process methods and systems for drilling are described. The methods include performing a drilling operation through a downhole formation, the drilling operation generating drilling cuttings. A single drilling cuttings sample is obtained at a surface-based location. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and/or x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis are performed on the single drilling cuttings sample. Element information and mineral information of the single drilling cuttings sample is obtained from the XRF analysis regarding the downhole formation. From the obtained information, a determination of at least one rock petrophysics property of the downhole formation is made).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine surface logging with cutting-based rock petrophysics analysis as taught by YAO et al to reservoir segment evaluation for well planning method of URIBE et al would be to determine at least one rock petrophysics property of the downhole formation from the element information and the mineral information (YAO et al, pg. 2).
Claim 16. The instant claim recites substantially same limitation as the above rejected claim 3, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19. The instant claim recites substantially same limitation as the above rejected claim 3, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 04/27/2026
Prosecution Insights