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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3- 5, 10, 11, and 16-20 are Rejected under 101 Rejection.
Claims 1, 3- 5, 10, 11, and 16-20 are Rejected under 35 USC § 112.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, filed (07/25/2025), with respect to pending claims 1, 3- 5, 10, 11, and 16-20 and have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended
The new amendments of raise new issue of new matter. See rejection below.
Arguments
35 USC §101
The Applicant argue (Pages 7 and 8):
“Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent claims upon which claims 2-4, 10, and 16-20 depend. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability.” Independent claims 5 and 11 are currently amended to recite, inter alia, “adapting a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability.” Support for this amendment can be found in paragraphs [0059]-[0060] of the Application as filed as an operator of a fluid sampling tool changes its pump rate as a function of the formation permeability or “the ability for a rock formation to transmit a fluid or gas” as recited in paragraph [0060] of the Application as filed. Further, Proett teaches that “The pumping times needed to obtain a high quality sample (i.e., 95%) change dramatically with permeability...
First, Applicant respectfully submits that the limitation “adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability” of claims 1, 5, and 11 integrates the calculating steps into a practical application.”
The new amendment of claims 5 and 11 raising the new issue (see rejection under 35 USC § 112).
Also, the new amendments do not overcomes the 101 rejection, because new amendment (adapting steps) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because represents insignificant post solution activity. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3- 5, 10, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1 the new limitation of “adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability” is not term in the art and does not support by the Specification.
In claim 5 the new limitation of “adapting a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability” is not term in the art and does not support by the Specification.
In claim 11 the new limitation of “adapt a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability” is not term in the art and does not support by the Specification.
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, 3-5, 10, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a
statutory category by 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. The below claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claim 1 all include abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) shown below.
“1. A method comprising:
obtaining a relative dip angle from geological data in a wellbore and /or a nearby wellbore, wherein the geological data comprises data from an imaging tool, a triaxial tool, a seismic tool, or any combination thereof, wherein the relative dip angle is an angle between a horizontal plane and a bed boundary above a focus sampling probe of a fluid sampling tool;
disposing the fluid sampling tool into the wellbore at a first location;
measuring a drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the fluid sampling tool;
measuring a fluid density;
measuring a fluid viscosity;
measuring a fluid flow rate;
calculating a mobility of a fluid in a bed moving to the focus sampling probe in the horizontal plane from the measured drawdown pressure, build up pressure, fluid density , and fluid flow rate using a bending curve model;
calculating a bed mobility anisotropy from the measured drawdown pressure and build up pressure and the relative dip angle;
calculating a bed mobility from the bed mobility anisotropy;
calculating a bed permeability from the bed mobility and the fluid viscosity;
conveying the fluid sampling tool to a subsequent location; and
adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability.”
“5. A method comprising:
obtaining a first relative dip angle and a second relative dip angle from geological data in a wellbore and /or a nearby wellbore, wherein the geological data comprises data from and imaging tool, a triaxial tool, a seismic tool, or any combination thereof, wherein the first relative dip angle is an angle between a x direction and a bed boundary above a focus sampling probe of a first fluid sampling tool and the second relative dip angle is an angle between a x direction and a bed boundary above a focus sampling probe of a second fluid sampling tool;
disposing the first fluid sampling tool and the second fluid sampling tool into the wellbore, wherein the first sampling tool and the second fluid sampling tool are orthogonal to each other;
measuring a first drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the first fluid sampling tool in an x direction to obtain a pressure in the x direction;
measuring a fluid density with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
measuring a fluid viscosity with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
measuring a fluid flow rate with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
measuring a second drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the second fluid sampling tool in the z direction to obtain a pressure in the z direction;
measuring a fluid density with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
measuring a fluid viscosity with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
measuring a fluid flow rate with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
calculating a mobility of a fluid in a bed moving to the focus sampling probe in the x direction from the pressure in the x direction, fluid density, and flow rate using a bending curve model;
calculating a mobility of a fluid in a bed moving to the focus sampling probe in the z direction from the pressure in the z direction, fluid density, and flow rate using a bending curve model;
identifying a stratigraphic angle from a database;
calculating a bed mobility anisotropy from the first drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the second drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the first relative dip angle, the second relative dip angle, and the stratigraphic angle; calculating a bed mobility from the bed mobility anisotropy; and
calculating a spatial permeability from the bed mobility and the viscosity; and
adapting a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability”.
11. A system comprising:
a first fluid sampling tool comprising a first sampling probe section, wherein the first sampling probe section performs a first drawdown and build up measurement with the first fluid sampling tool in an x direction;
a second fluid sampling tool comprising a second sampling probe section and disposed orthogonal on a conveyance to the first fluid sampling tool, wherein the second fluid sampling tool performs a second drawdown and build up measuring with the second fluid sampling too in the z direction; and
an information handling system connected to the first fluid sampling tool and the second fluid sampling tool and configured to:
obtaining a first relative dip angle and a second relative dip angle from geological data in a wellbore and /or a nearby wellbore, wherein the geological data comprises data from and imaging tool, a triaxial tool, a seismic tool, or any combination thereof, wherein the first relative dip angle is an angle between a x direction and a bed boundary above a first sampling probe of a first fluid sampling tool and the second relative dip angle is an angle between a z direction and a bed boundary above a second sampling probe of a second fluid sampling tool;
measuring a first drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the first fluid sampling tool in an x direction to obtain a pressure in the x direction;
measuring a fluid density with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
measuring a fluid viscosity with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
measuring a fluid flow rate with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
calculate a mobility of a fluid in a bed moving to the focus sampling prove in the x direction Mx, from the pressure in the x direction, fluid density, and flow rate using a bending curve model;
measuring a second drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the second fluid sampling tool in the z direction to obtain a pressure in the z direction;
measuring a fluid density with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
measuring a fluid viscosity with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
measuring a fluid flow rate with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
calculate a mobility of a fluid in a bed moving to the focus sampling prove in the z direction Mz, from the pressure in the z direction, fluid density, and flow rate using a bending curve model;
identify a stratigraphic angle from the database;
calculate a bed mobility anisotropy from the first drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the second drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the first relative dip angle, the second relative dip angle, and the stratigraphic angle;
calculate a bed mobility from the bed mobility anisotropy; and
calculate a spatial permeability from the bed mobility and the viscosity; and
adapt a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability.”
The highlighted steps is considered to be equivalent of a mathematical concepts and mathematical steps or directed to mental process concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation and opinion).
Under step 2A prong 2,
The claims the claim just defining field of use for calculation and do not tied to any particular device.
Regarding Claim 1:
the steps of “measuring a relative dip angle from the fluid sampling tool” just insignificant additional steps of data gathering.
The steps of “disposing a fluid sampling tool into a wellbore at a first location” just insignificant additional steps.
The claim 1 does not comprise any significant elements/steps.
Regarding Claim 5:
the steps of “measuring a first relative dip angle from the fluid sampling tool” and “measuring a second relative dip angle from the second fluid sampling tool” ”just insignificant additional steps of data gathering.
The steps of “disposing a first fluid sampling tool and second fluid sampling tool into a wellbore at a first location…are orthogonal to each other” just insignificant additional steps.
Regarding Claim 11:
The steps of “ a first/second fluid sampling tool comprising a first /second sampling probe section...” just insignificant additional steps.
The claims 1, 5 and 11 do not comprise any significant elements/steps.
The new steps of “adapting a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability and adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability and the fluid viscosity and adapt a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability ” just related to insignificant post solution activity.
Under step 2B
The Claim 1 does not include any additional elements into which the Abstract idea can be integrated to create a practical application.
1. The new measuring steps of ”measuring a drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the fluid sampling tool; measuring a fluid density; measuring a fluid viscosity;
measuring a fluid flow rate” of the claim 1 which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the Jones et al (US Pub.20200284140A1), see para [0012], [0026], and [0029], and Greci et al (US Pub.20190055813A1), see para [0026].
Thus steps are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because represents well-understood, routinely used and conventional steps/activity in relevant art (with accordance by the Berkeimer Memo).
The new steps of “adapting a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability and adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability and the fluid viscosity and adapt a pump rate of the first and second fluid sampling tools based on the calculated spatial permeability ” just related to insignificant post solution activity.
The claim 1 additionally comprising the “disposing a fluid sampling tool into a wellbore at a first location” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the Song et al., (US Pub.20190390542A, see para [0028]) and Benett (US Pub. 20200003922A1), see para [0022], and [0034] and Meek (US Pub.20080115575A1) (see Fig. 3B, # 312 probes and 314 probes).
The claim 1 additionally comprising the “measuring a relative dip angle from the fluid sampling tool” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the Song et al., (US Pub.20190390542A, see para [0028]) and Benett (US Pub. 20200003922A1), see para [0022], and [0034].
The obtaining steps of claims 1, 5 and 11 just insignificant extra solution activity of obtaining data.
2. The claim 5 additionally comprising the steps of “measuring a first drawdown pressure and build up measurement with the first fluid sampling tool in an x direction;
measuring a second drawdown pressure and build up pressure with the second fluid sampling tool in the z direction” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Tang et al., (US Pub, 2021/0041590A1) para [0030] and Proett (US Pub.2020217195A1)(see para [0009]).
The new steps of “measuring a fluid density with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction; measuring a fluid viscosity with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction;
measuring a fluid flow rate with the first fluid sampling tool in the x direction” and “measuring a fluid density with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
measuring a fluid viscosity with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction;
measuring a fluid flow rate with the first fluid sampling tool in the z direction” of claims 5 and 11, which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Jones et al., (US Pub.20220195871A1), see para [0012] and [0103]-[0107], and Lynn (US Pub.20160024899A1), see para [0021] and [0061].
The claim 11 additionally comprising the steps of “a second fluid sampling tool comprising a second sampling probe section and disposed orthogonal on a conveyance to the first fluid sampling tool” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Meek et al., (US Pub, 2008/0115575A1) para [0181] and Proett (US Pub.2020217195A1)(see para [0031]-[0032], Figures 9A and (b), # 906 and 908) and Naveena-Chandran et al (US Pub.20210238999A1) discloses the two tools with two sensors and which are orthogonally to each other (Fig. 2, # 220 with two different sensors 225 and second tools 240 with two sensors 245, the sensors 225 orthogonally to the sensors 245).
The steps of the first/second relative dip angle is measured from a first/second horizontal plane…” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Tang et al., (US Pub, 2021/0041590A1) para [0030] and Proett (US Pub.2020217195A1)(see para [0009]).
The steps of “a pressure in the x direction and a mobility in the x direction” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Naveena-Chandran et al (US Pub.20210238999A1) discloses the two tools with two sensors and which are orthogonally to each other (Fig. 2, # 220 , para [0112]) and Proett (US Pub.20200217195A1)(see para [0009]).
The steps of “a pressure in the z direction and a mobility in the z direction” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Naveena-Chandran et al (US Pub.20210238999A1) discloses the two tools with two sensors and which are orthogonally to each other (Fig. 2, # 220 , para [0112]) and Proett (US Pub.2020217195A1)(see para [0009]).
Claims 4, 10 and 16 comprising steps of “the viscosity us measured …reservoir fluid” which is well-known, routing and conventional elements/structure, as evidence provide by the see Naveena-Chandran (see para [0052-[0054]), and Jones (US Pub. 20200284140A1), (see para [0012])
Claim 20 just additionally describes the type of data.
The depended claims 17-19 are merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
1) Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1, Proett (US Pub.20200217195A1), hereinafter Proett discloses a method comprising: obtaining a relative dip angle from a geological data in a wellbore and/or a nearby wellbore, wherein the geological data comprises data from an imaging tool, a triaxial tool, a seismic tool, or any combination thereof, wherein the relative dip angle is an angle between a horizontal plane and a bed boundary above a focus sampling probe of a fluid sampling tool (Figures 6A-6C, para [0009], [0024]-[0026]);
disposing a fluid sampling tool into a wellbore at a first location (para [0042], where the testing is performed at two or more depth locations along the wellbore to determine at least three formation properties along the interval tested);
measuring a drawdown pressure and build up measurement with the fluid sampling tool (Fig. 2, para [0018], where three pressure tests are performed with a single drawdown and buildup pulse. In some embodiments, the pressure data can be monitored for each probe and is illustrated by the curves and with the magnitude of the drawdown to buildup pressure differential measurements);
measuring a relative dip angle from the fluid sampling tool (Figures 6A-6C, para [0024]-[0026], where well bore being dipped at an angle ϕ.sub.D relative to the bedding plane and an azimuthal angle ϕ.sub.A relative to the orientation of the probe(s) around the well bore with first formation condition shown is for a single bedding plane with boundaries; para [0130], where FIGS. 6a-6c illustrates three types of formation conditions: single formation bedding plane with boundaries 602, two formation beds intersecting near the probes 604, and three formation bedding planes 606);
calculating a bed anisotropy from the drawdown (para [0103]);
calculating a bed mobility from the bed anisotropy (para [0052], [0053]); and
calculating a bed permeability from the bed mobility (para [0055]);
conveying the fluid sampling tool to a subsequent location(para [0013]).
Naveena-Chandran et al (US Pub.20210238999A1), hereinafter Naveena-Chandran
discloses calculating a bed permeability from the bed mobility and a viscosity (para [0052]-[0054], where Permeability can be derived from a mobility parameter, such as shown in Equation 2B. M=K/m, M- mobility parameter, K is permeability, and m viscosity of the reservoir fluid).
Meek (US Pub.20080115575A1) measuring a fluid density (para [0050), measuring a fluid flow rate (para 0111]);
Khan (US10982539B2 discloses measuring a fluid viscosity (Claim 6);
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of testing having the steps of:
“calculating a bed mobility anisotropy from the drawdown pressure and build up pressure and the relative dip angle; and calculating a bed permeability from the bed mobility and the fluid viscosity; adapting a pump rate of the fluid sampling tool to the calculated bed permeability and the fluid viscosity”.
Claims 3 and 4 are not rejected under 102/103 Rejection as being dependent from base claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5:
Naveena-Chandran et al (US Pub.20210238999A1) discloses the two tools with two sensors and which are orthogonally to each other (Fig. 2, # 220 with two different sensors 225 and second tools 240 with two sensors 245, the sensors 225 orthogonally to the sensors 245).
Meek (US Pub.20080115575A1) discloses two tools (see Fig. 3B, # 312 probes and 314 probes), but Meek does not disclose the two tools is orthogonal to each other and takes the measurement in x direction and z direction.
Khan (US10982539B2 discloses the tool Fig. 3 with nozzle 302 for fluid sample from the reservoir, The tool 114 and creating a drawdown pressure in the test fracture (see Abstract). Kahn disclose (para [0031], where creating the drawdown pressure in the test fracture including reversing a pumping direction of the fracturing fluid);
Song et al., (US Pub.20190390542A, see para [0028]) and Benett (US Pub. 20200003922A1), see para [0022], and [0034] disclose the “disposing a first fluid sampling tool and a second fluid sampling tool into a wellbore, wherein the first sampling tool and the second fluid sampling tool are orthogonal to each other”
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of testing having the steps of:
“calculate a mobility of a fluid in the bed moving to the focus sampling probe in the z direction Mz from the pressure in the z direction, fluid density , and flow rate using a bending curve model;
calculating a bed mobility anisotropy from the first drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the second drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the first relative dip angle, the second relative dip angle, and the stratigraphic angle; calculating a bed mobility from the bed mobility anisotropy; and calculating a spatial permeability from the bed mobility and the viscosity.”
Regarding claim 11:
Jones (US Pub.20200284140A1) discloses (para [0060], where one or more drawdown volumes, one or more drawdown rates, one or more drawdown pressures, the one or more tool parameters, or the formation parameters);
Chang et al (WO2012129389) discloses (para [0022], where a buildup pressure following the second drawdown sequence may be used to determine a formation characteristic such as, for example, a formation pressure or a mobility, which may then be used to set or specify a test parameter such as, for example, a time, a volume or a flow rate to define or be used in a subsequent operational sequence of the tool such as, for example, a third type of drawdown to draw fluid into the formation testing tool);i.e., the sequence of parameters for second drawdown of the same tool.
Li (US Pub.20180371903A1) discloses (para [00122], where difference in pressure data characteristics at different times (e.g., during drawdown, flow into the tool) (Li discloses just one tool)
Meek et al., (US Pub. 20080115575) discloses (Fig. 14, para [0103], where draw formation material into the probes 312 and 314, each of the drawdown pistons 1402 and 1404 is configured to move relative to its respective probe 312 and 314 in the directions generally indicated by the arrows 1410 and 1412).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of testing having the steps of:
“ calculate a mobility of a fluid in the bed moving to the focus sampling probe in the z direction Mz from the pressure in the z direction, fluid density , and flow rate using a bending curve model;
calculating a bed mobility anisotropy from the first drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the second drawdown pressure and build up pressure, the first relative dip angle, the second relative dip angle, and the stratigraphic angle; calculating a bed mobility from the bed mobility anisotropy; and
calculating a spatial permeability from the bed mobility and the viscosity.”
Claims 10, and 16-20 are not rejected under 102/103 Rejection as being dependent from base claims 5 and 11 correspondently.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857