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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/27/2023, 10/20/2023, 12/15/2023, 04/03/2024, 04/08/2024, 07/02/2024,03/26/2025 are 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 1-20 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 1-8 are directed to a method.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a system.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a product.
Therefore, claims 1-20 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 implemented using a system for managing operations involving a gas production system, the method comprising:
obtaining surface production data of wells in the gas production system [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
generating, using a well simulation module and a surface network module, predictions about a plurality of conditions in the gas production system [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
computing a difference between measured conditions obtained from the production data and predicted conditions obtained from the predictions about the plurality of conditions in the gas production system [mathematical concepts];
determining, based on the computed difference, a performance deviation in the gas production system [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or [mathematical concepts]];
comparing the performance deviation to a predetermined threshold value that represents an acceptable tolerance for variance in performance of the gas production system [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)]; and
triggering, when the performance deviation exceeds the predetermined threshold value, a particular type of automated response comprising an action that addresses the variance in performance of the gas production system [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
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”. The additional element of “obtaining” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). 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.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or [mathematical concepts]].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 15, independent claim 15 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 15 recites additional element of “one or more processors”. The components 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 these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “one or more processors” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 10-20: The instant claims recite substantially same limitation as the above rejected claims 1-8, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US publication No. 2010/0206559 A1 issued to Sequeira et al.
1. Sequeira et al discloses a method implemented using a system for managing operations involving a gas production system (See: [0002] The invention relates generally to the field of oil and gas production, and more particularly to reservoir management and surveillance. Specifically, the invention is a method for improving the ability of geoscientists and engineers to analyze and monitor the performance of a producing field or a planned producing field), the method comprising:
obtaining surface production data of wells in the gas production system (See: par [0021] (d) obtaining simulated historical production data from the reservoir simulator);
generating, using a well simulation module and a surface network module, predictions about a plurality of conditions in the gas production system (See: [0018] In one general aspect, a method for making production forecasts for a field containing one or more oil or gas reservoirs includes (a) developing a three-dimensional earth model of the field. (b) A geologic model of at least one reservoir is developed, based at least in part on the earth model, the geologic model being a cellular-based representation of at least one reservoir, each cell being assigned a value for a plurality of properties describing distribution of pore space, fluid types and amounts in place. (c) A reservoir simulator based at least in part on the geologic model is developed, said simulator being capable of predicting production rates. (d) Simulated historical production data is obtained from the reservoir simulator and (e) the simulated production data is compared with actual production data. (f) The earth model is adjusted to reduce any differences between simulated and actual data. Steps (b)-(f) are repeated using the adjusted earth model, adjusting the geologic model and simulator consistent with the adjustment to the earth model. (h) The adjusted earth model is used to make production forecasts for the field; [0020] The step of adjusting the earth model to reduce any differences between simulated and actual data may include displaying the 3D earth model in a computer-assisted visualization viewer; and concurrently displaying actual and predicted production data with the 3D earth model viewer, said displays being interactive such that adjustments to the earth model produce corresponding changes in predicted production data; [0033] Production data may be actual (field production to data) or predicted (simulated model results) to allow for a comparison of actual vs. predicted in the analysis. The method will allow for comparing and analyzing actual to predicted production or multiple realizations of simulated production data if historical data are not yet available, e.g. pre-production development planning; [0052] 15) Display all production data and animate in time-synchronized and interactive 2D and 3D plots and views to show actual vs. predicted performance (step 208). The flow chart of FIG. 3 represents potential 3D and 2D views of the invention and illustrates how production data are animated in one embodiment of the invention);
computing a difference between measured conditions obtained from the production data and predicted conditions obtained from the predictions about the plurality of conditions in the gas production system (See: [0079] The linked 2D charts and 3D views provide for the ability to quickly review production and field history and identify anomalies and deviations from expected in a spatial context as well as to quickly query down to a specific well or group of wells that are performing anomalously. In addition to the visual analysis and comparison capabilities, additional functionality may be provided with algorithms to statistically analyze the degree of data similarity or non-similarity);
determining, based on the computed difference, a performance deviation in the gas production system (See: [0081] In the example given in FIGS. 4A-D and 5, the ability to animate sporadic and dynamic production data in interactive and linked 2D and 3D charts allows the user to identify if production performance is deviating from expected and provide the tools to quickly determine where, when and why the deviations occurred. For instance, it may be noted in FIG. 4B that the field, cumulative performance was not performing as expected. From FIG. 4C, the user can identify which well or wells are contributing to the problem: the production in well #3 is half of what was expected. Examining well #3's individual production data, the user can determine if other data are anomalous (FIG. 4D). In this case, in addition to cumulative production, reservoir pressure is also dropping suggesting that the well is not in communication with other wells in the field. The interactive 3D viewer, FIG. 4A, allows the user to compare the spatial relationship of the anomalous well to nearby wells to ascertain if the problem is limited to the individual well or affects a larger area);
comparing the performance deviation to a predetermined threshold value that represents an acceptable tolerance for variance in performance of the gas production system (See: [0082] FIG. 6 is a flow diagram to illustrate one specific use case. In this example well #3 is located in a pressure low (see FIG. 4A), which appears isolated from the other wells. The first step, 601, is to identify if the problem is isolated to Well #3 or is field wide. If the pressure drop is field wide then adjusting permeability globally, step 606, may be acceptable. A global update of the geologic model and a re-run the simulation may be sufficient to test a new realization. For this particular example, however, it will be assumed that the pressure drop is limited to Well #3. In step 602, the 3D Earth Model and its associated data are used to identify potential causes of the segmentation of Well #3 from the rest of the field. Visual and analytical tools, such as slicing and filtering, within the invention allow the identification of an area of lower rock quality in the vicinity of Well #3. Once causes for the anomalous well are identified, the user can query the 3D Earth Model to identify possible corrections, step 603. Using the 3D Earth model and the visual and analytical tools, it is determined that the reservoir interval was originally interpreted too thick and needs to thin. In addition, porosity and permeability in the area around Well #3 needs to be adjusted downward. Since the 3D Earth Model has all the pertinent data, the analyst has all the information necessary to make comprehensive adjustments. In step 604 the grids of the 3D Earth Model are adjusted interactively in the 3D viewer in the area around Well #3. Through the interrogation of the 3D Earth Model, the area to limit the downward adjustments to the permeability and porosity functions are also determined. The new grids, permeability, and porosity functions are sent to re-run the geologic model, step 605. The updated geologic model is then used to update the simulation model to re-run the simulated production, step 607. The re-run simulated production can be compared to the actual production data, step 608, to determine if there is an acceptable match, step 609. If the match is still not acceptable then the Earth Model can be re-examined for potential solutions to iterate again, steps 603 through 609. If independent fluid movement data is available, such as 4D seismic, it can be integrated into the analysis at any step, 601 through 609); and
triggering, when the performance deviation exceeds the predetermined threshold value, a particular type of automated response comprising an action that addresses the variance in performance of the gas production system (See: [0080] Throughout the analysis, if it is determined that the simulated production data is not statistically comparable or is incorrect with the actual production data or the original input models are incorrect, then the 3D Earth Model will need to be updated and the process re-run. (Steps 22, 23) Techniques for determining which model properties to adjust may be found in references such as Tavassoli et al., Mattox et. al, and Boberg et. al. which discuss history matching techniques. (Step 24) The invention facilitates adjusting model properties and grids interactively. Model cells that need to be adjusted can be selected through a threshold filter or other methods. Properties associated with these cells can be passed to other models and derivative properties can be generated. Grids can also be adjusted and the properties associated with the cells bounding these surfaces can be adjusted as well. (Step 25) Once the grid and cell properties are selected and adjusted, these can be passed to the geologic model as shown in FIG. 1. Due to the changes to the geologic model, a new simulation model will be generated as well as new simulated production data. Adjusted properties can also be passed directly to the simulation model if the adjustments are deemed minor prior to generating new simulated production data. (Step 26) This process will be repeated until an acceptable match is achieved, i.e. actual vs. predicted production are statistically similar. (Step 27)).
2. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining a performance deviation comprises: determining a magnitude of the performance deviation; or determining a magnitude of the variance in performance of the gas production system (See: [0081] In the example given in FIGS. 4A-D and 5, the ability to animate sporadic and dynamic production data in interactive and linked 2D and 3D charts allows the user to identify if production performance is deviating from expected and provide the tools to quickly determine where, when and why the deviations occurred. For instance, it may be noted in FIG. 4B that the field, cumulative performance was not performing as expected. From FIG. 4C, the user can identify which well or wells are contributing to the problem: the production in well #3 is half of what was expected. Examining well #3's individual production data, the user can determine if other data are anomalous (FIG. 4D). In this case, in addition to cumulative production, reservoir pressure is also dropping suggesting that the well is not in communication with other wells in the field. The interactive 3D viewer, FIG. 4A, allows the user to compare the spatial relationship of the anomalous well to nearby wells to ascertain if the problem is limited to the individual well or affects a larger area).
3. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 2, wherein triggering a particular type of automated response comprises: selecting a particular type of automated response based at least on the magnitude of the variance in performance of the gas production system; and triggering an action of the selected particular type of automated response that reduces the magnitude of the variance in performance of the gas production system (See: [0019] Implementations of this aspect may include one or more of the following features. For example, the method may include continuing to cycle through steps (b)-(f) until the differences between simulated and actual data are reduced to be within a pre-selected tolerance or another stopping point is reached; [0020] The step of adjusting the earth model to reduce any differences between simulated and actual data may include displaying the 3D earth model in a computer-assisted visualization viewer; and concurrently displaying actual and predicted production data with the 3D earth model viewer, said displays being interactive such that adjustments to the earth model produce corresponding changes in predicted production data; (a) developing a three-dimensional earth model of the field; (b) developing a geologic model of at least one reservoir, based at least in part on the earth model, said geologic model being a cellular-based representation of at least one reservoir, each cell being assigned a value for a plurality of properties describing distribution of pore space, fluid types and amounts in place; (c) developing a reservoir simulator based at least in part on the geologic model, said simulator being capable of predicting production rates; (d) obtaining simulated historical production data from the reservoir simulator; (e) comparing the simulated production data with actual production data; (f) adjusting the earth model to reduce any differences between simulated and actual data; (g) repeating steps (b)-(f) using the adjusted earth model, adjusting the geologic model and simulator consistent with the adjustment to the earth model; and (h) using the adjusted earth model to make production forecasts for the field).
4. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 3, wherein triggering an action of the selected particular type of automated response comprises: triggering an action that eliminates the variance in performance of the gas production system and the performance deviation (See: [0019] Implementations of this aspect may include one or more of the following features. For example, the method may include continuing to cycle through steps (b)-(f) until the differences between simulated and actual data are reduced to be within a pre-selected tolerance or another stopping point is reached; [0020] The step of adjusting the earth model to reduce any differences between simulated and actual data may include displaying the 3D earth model in a computer-assisted visualization viewer; and concurrently displaying actual and predicted production data with the 3D earth model viewer, said displays being interactive such that adjustments to the earth model produce corresponding changes in predicted production data).
5. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the particular type of automated response comprises at least one of: an action that generates a warning notification (See: [0035] The invention, as proposed, will allow for the rapid identification of anomalous field and well performance and provide the user the ability to investigate the root causes of performance deviation from predicted. The invention uses tools to both statistically analyze and visualize the degree of conformance of actual to predicted production data as well as tools to interactively adjust input model properties and re-run the process until and acceptable match is achieved. Utilization of the invention, process and method, allows the users to take appropriate, timely action to optimize the economic value of the producing resource; par [0081] From FIG. 4C, the user can identify which well or wells are contributing to the problem: the production in well #3 is half of what was expected. Examining well #3's individual production data, the user can determine if other data are anomalous (FIG. 4D). In this case, in addition to cumulative production, reservoir pressure is also dropping suggesting that the well is not in communication with other wells in the field. The interactive 3D viewer, FIG. 4A, allows the user to compare the spatial relationship of the anomalous well to nearby wells to ascertain if the problem is limited to the individual well or affects a larger area); or an action that generates an alarm signal.
6. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the wells are gas or hydrocarbon producing wells (See: 0002] The invention relates generally to the field of oil and gas production, and more particularly to reservoir management and surveillance. Specifically, the invention is a method for improving the ability of geoscientists and engineers to analyze and monitor the performance of a producing field or a planned producing field; [0018] In one general aspect, a method for making production forecasts for a field containing one or more oil or gas reservoirs includes (a) developing a three-dimensional earth model of the field); and the predictions about a plurality of conditions comprises predicted data values for flow rate, pressure, and temperature relating to the gas or hydrocarbon producing wells (See: [0058] 21) Analyze degree of similarity of production data sets, actual vs predicted, using both statistical analysis methods and visual comparisons in 2D charts and 3D views. Statistical analysis could include algorithms to determine the degree of similarity between two or more production profiles. Visual comparison could include determining if flow or production behavior is conforming to interpreted behavior. (Step 108); [0068] 4) The simulation model and associated time independent properties such as horizons, porosity, horizontal permeability, vertical permeability, and time dependant properties such as fluid saturations, fluid rates, fluid ratios, fluid cumulatives, reservoir pressure, and well pressures).
7. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the performance deviation includes flow conditions of the gas production system that are outside the acceptable tolerance (See: [0080] Throughout the analysis, if it is determined that the simulated production data is not statistically comparable or is incorrect with the actual production data or the original input models are incorrect, then the 3D Earth Model will need to be updated and the process re-run; par [0082] then used to update the simulation model to re-run the simulated production, step 607. The re-run simulated production can be compared to the actual production data, step 608, to determine if there is an acceptable match, step 609. If the match is still not acceptable then the Earth Model can be re-examined for potential solutions to iterate again, steps 603 through 609. If independent fluid movement data is available, such as 4D seismic, it can be integrated into the analysis at any step, 601 through 609).
8. Sequeira et al discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the particular type of automated response comprises at least one of: an action that causes, by an autonomous system, intervention at a particular area of the gas production system; or a total shut-in of at least one of the wells (See: [0056] 19) Animate production events, such as downtime, shut-ins, work-overs or other discreet or sporadic production data concurrently with other displays (step 304)).
As per Claims 9-20: The instant claims recite substantially same limitation as the above rejected claims 1-8, 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 05/07/2026
Prosecution Insights