CTNF 18/107,587 CTNF 94201 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because #REF! is used to describe some of the curve lines in figure 7 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1000 and 1050 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “determining petrophysical rock type” which is grammatically incorrect . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites PNG media_image1.png 30 72 media_image1.png Greyscale when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a well the is further” which is grammatically incorrect . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “porosity and permeability” when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a PRT porosity and permeability” when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the porosity/permeability chart” when it is the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “Krw” without defining it at the relative permeability of water . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “determining petrophysical rock type” which is grammatically incorrect . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites PNG media_image1.png 30 72 media_image1.png Greyscale when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a well the is further” which is grammatically incorrect . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “porosity and permeability” when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a PRT porosity and permeability” when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the porosity/permeability chart” when it is the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “Krw” without defining it at the relative permeability of water . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “determining petrophysical rock type” which is grammatically incorrect . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites PNG media_image1.png 30 72 media_image1.png Greyscale when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a well the is further” which is grammatically incorrect . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “porosity and permeability” when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a PRT porosity and permeability” when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 26. Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more. 27. Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. 28. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea of simulating a thermal modeling using finite element, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper or alternatively some limitations can be viewed as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. The limitation of " PNG media_image2.png 70 896 media_image2.png Greyscale ” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging what the petrophysical rock type is, additionally when looking at the figures of Gunter, this could be a mathematical process including plotting points on a graph where a rock type is determined based on point placement. Additionally, the limitation of “ classifying special core analysis (SCAL) data based on PRT porosity and permeability distribution on a SCAL group, and ” covers mental processes including evaluating a labeled dataset. Additionally, the limitation of “ generating a representative relative permeability curve from each SCAL group. ” covers mental processes including drawing out a curve based on a dataset or alternatively a mathematical process including plotting points on a graph. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper or alternatively mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. 29. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. 30. Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 8 and 15, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, as well as “one or more processors” in claim 15 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 31. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. 32. Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. . In Claims 8 and 15, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, as well as “one or more processors” in claim 15 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” 33. The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims. 34. Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to further defining the identification techniques, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts.” 35. Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed to further defining an additional distribution, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.” 36. Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to further defining the how the measurements are validated, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.” 37. Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to further defining what the validated measurements are, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.” 38. Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to further defining how values are determined using a curve, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts.” 39. Dependent claims 7 and 14 are directed to modifying a data point based on a chart, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.” 40. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunter et al. “Challenges of Determining and Comparing Reservoir Storage and Flow Properties Using Deterministic Petrophysical Rock Types via Multiple Pore Throat Radius Indicators” in view of Ebeltoft et al. “PARAMETER BASED SCAL - ANALYSING RELATIVE PERMEABILITY FOR FULL FIELD APPLICATION.” Regarding claim 1, Gunter teaches PNG media_image2.png 70 896 media_image2.png Greyscale (INTRODUCTION, the PRT is based on the relationship of porosity and permeability) Gunter does not explicitly teach classifying special core analysis (SCAL) data based on PRT porosity and permeability distribution on a SCAL group, and generating a representative relative permeability curve from each SCAL group. Ebeltoft teaches classifying special core analysis (SCAL) data based on PRT porosity and permeability distribution on a SCAL group, and (Abstract, the rock properties are stored with each representative SCAL group, which includes porosity and permeability values) generating a representative relative permeability curve from each SCAL group. (RELATIVE PERMEABILITY EXPERIMENTS AND SENSITIVITIES, TREND MODELS FOR LET FLOW PARAMETERS, Figures 1, 2, 10 and 14, relative permeability curves are created for each SCAL group) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Gunter with Ebeltoft as the references deal with characterization of wells, in order to implement a system that uses PRT data to create a SCAL group with a relative permeability curve that is used to modify values, and include centrifuge imbibition, maximum water relative permeability, and residual oil saturation in the SCAL calculations. Ebeltoft would modify Gunter by using PRT data to create a SCAL group with a relative permeability curve that is used to modify values, and include centrifuge imbibition, maximum water relative permeability, and residual oil saturation in the SCAL calculations. The benefit of doing so is the use of the SCAL model allows for proper evaluation and uncertainty analysis of recoverable reserves for specific fields. (Ebeltoft CONCLUSION) Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gunter and Ebeltoft teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gunter also teaches wherein petrophysical rock types are identified based on Winland and Lucia techniques. (Abstract, PORE THROAT RADIUS INDICATOR–WINLAND R35 (WR35), CARBONATE GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION: LUCIA ROCK CLASS AND ROCK FABRIC NUMBER, Winland and Lucia techniques are used) Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gunter and Ebeltoft teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gunter also teaches PNG media_image3.png 32 692 media_image3.png Greyscale (INTRODUCTION, a static distribution model of the porosity and permeability) Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gunter and Ebeltoft teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gunter also teaches wherein determining the PRT for a well the is further based on validated historical measurements. (PORE THROAT RADIUS INDICATOR AGUILERA - AR35 (AGUILERA, 2002 & 2004), a reference databased to determine PRT characteristics) Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gunter and Ebeltoft teaches the limitations of claim 4. Gunter does not explicitly teach wherein the validated historical measurements include centrifuge imbibition, maximum water relative permeability, and residual oil saturation. (RELATIVE PERMEABILITY EXPERIMENTS AND SENSITIVITIES, centrifuge imbibition is used; TREND MODELS FOR LET FLOW PARAMETERS, maximum water relative permeability and residual oil saturation are used) See motivation of claim 1 Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gunter and Ebeltoft teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gunter teaches determining, using porosity and permeability values from a porosity/permeability chart for a PRT porosity and permeability distribution, a Kr curve for a carbonate reservoir at a given layer. (USE OF FACIES MODELS, PRTs and SHM TO CREATE REALISTIC THREE DIMENSIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS, a Kr curve with respect to depth for each layer and grid block is created using the porosity and permeability distribution) Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gunter and Ebeltoft teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gunter does not explicitly recite modifying, using the porosity/permeability chart, initial water saturation or residual oil saturation or maximum value of Krw. Ebeltoft teaches modifying, using the porosity/permeability chart, initial water saturation or residual oil saturation or maximum value of Krw. (Field-specific trend models, Generating relative permeability curves for full field simulations, Figure 9, the water saturation is modified using porosity and permeability; Figures 10-17, the residual oil saturation and maximum value of Krw are modified using porosity and permeability) See motivation of claim 1 In regards to claim 8, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. The additional computer components can be seen in the software discussed in the introduction. In regards to claim 9, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2. In regards to claim 10, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3. In regards to claim 11, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4. In regards to claim 12, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5. In regards to claim 13, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6. In regards to claim 14, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7. In regards to claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. In regards to claim 16, it is the system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2. In regards to claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3. In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4. In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5. In regards to claim 20, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gunter et al. “Integrating Rock Typing Methods Including Empirical, Deterministic, Statistical, Probabilistic, Predictive Techniques and New Applications for Practical Reservoir Characterization”: Also teaches the determination of PRTs with porosity and permeability. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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. /MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 2 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 3 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 4 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 5 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 6 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 7 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 8 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 9 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 10 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 11 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 13 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 18/107,587 Page 15 Art Unit: 2188
Prosecution Insights