DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract limitations, including:
“estimating a gas oil ratio (GOR) by deriving statistical relationships between gas composition ratios;
calculating a C7 transformation ratio (Trl) and present-day reservoir temperature (PDRT) based on the GOR;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a water washing intensity index based on the GOR, TO, and PDRT; and
integrating the water washing intensity index with a gross depositional environment map, wherein a resulting integrated map guides water washing of accumulations.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claims recites the additional elements of: a hardware processor, a non-transitory computer readable, storage medium, processor, and memory modules.
The functions of the hardware processor, non-transitory computer readable, storage medium, processor, and memory modules are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements hardware processor, non-transitory computer readable, storage medium, processor, and memory modules). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, “obtaining gas compositions in real time, during drilling” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) because Molla (US 2022/0074303 see ¶ [0004]) discloses the limitation is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, “obtaining gas compositions after drilling by analyzing rock samples obtained during drilling” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) because Li (US 2013/0066605 see ¶ [0037]) discloses the limitation is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
Claim 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 further recite:
integrating the water washing intensity index with the gross depositional map comprises an indicated water washing intensity index associated with a corresponding depositional environment of the integrated map;
the statistical relationships are predetermined correlations between gas composition ratios and GOR;
calculating TO and PDRT based on the GOR comprises applying predetermined correlations to the GOR; and
the water washing intensity index quantifies an intensity of a water washing process as none, very slight, slight, moderate, or severe
which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 101 as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious the relationship between Tr1, PDRT, GOR, and the water washing intensity index in combination with the other claim limitations.
Examiner notes that “water washing” is a term of art referring to the process of having water in contact with hydrocarbon/oil/gas that alters the geochemical compositions and bulk physical properties of oil and gas accumulations in reservoirs/formations by removing water soluble and/or light molecular weight compounds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghazwani (US 2024/0218790) discloses a water washing method (Figs. 1, 9-10) by the same inventors/applicant with the same effective filing date of the present application.
Anifowose (US 2025/0225299) discloses estimation of water washing parameters (Abstract; Figs. 1A, 1B) using Tr1, GOR, and PDRT (¶ [0024, 0028]) by the same inventors/applicant with a later effective filing date of the present application.
Pop (US 2011/0088895) discloses taking samples and determining the degree of biodegradation and GOR (¶ [0136]).
Pomerantz (US 2013/0151159) discloses using a model to determine GOR (¶ [0012]) and determining if non-equilibrium conditions are due to water washing (¶ [0184]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672