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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “and estimating, using the at least one hardware processor, water saturation in unseen wells using the Buckles Number, porosity, and PRT, and simultaneously estimating bound fluid for the unseen wells using the PRT and the Buckles Number per PRT” at lines 8-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is hard to ascertain the antecedent basis for the limitation “porosity, and PRT” at line 9 and “the PRT” at line 10. Further, Do “PRT” and “the PRT” at lines 9 and 10 refer to “PRT type” at line 4 or the “PRT types” at line 5?
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as explained in claim 1. Claim 1’s rejection is herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the water saturation” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which “water saturation” does this refer to from claim 1’s “water saturation (for respective PRT types across multiple levels) at lines 4 and 5” or “water saturation” at line 8?
Similarly, the “water saturation” in claims 9 and 16 lacks proper antecedent basis for the same reason as explained in claim 2. Claim 2’s rejection is herein incorporated by reference.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from rejected claims 1, 8, and 15 and therefore are also rejected.
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: Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method…comprising: computing…computing…and estimating, using the at least one hardware processor, water saturation in unseen wells using the Buckles Number, porosity, and PRT, and simultaneously estimating bound fluid for the unseen wells using the PRT and the Buckles Number per PRT” Therefore, it is a process.
Each limitation as recited in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers mathematical calculation such as “computing…computing…and estimating…”. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical calculation grouping.
Further, the recited steps which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts" in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii). The recited steps in claim 1 when viewed as a whole recites a mental process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A),(B), (C) and (D).
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
There is no particular machine recited. The step of “estimating, using the at least one hardware processor, water saturation in unseen wells using the Buckles Number, porosity, and PRT, and simultaneously estimating bound fluid for the unseen wells using the PRT and the Buckles Number per PRT” is data gathering and insignificant. The limitations “(estimated) water saturation…” and “(estimated) bound fluid” are just data and the use is unlimited.
The limitation “estimating…” does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Instead, the claim appears to monopolize the abstract idea itself for any purpose or in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. It can cover anything that could be done in the field of water encroachment and bound fluid estimation, rather than integrating the finding of the water estimation into a particular practical application.
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine other than “at least one hardware processor” nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The limitation “estimating…” is merely data gathering and is simply insignificant data and the use is unlimited.
Further, the wells and hardware processor are merely a field of use tool.
Claim 1’s preamble recites “a computer implemented method” in which the computer-implementation only recites the abstract idea being performed by generic hardware processor; “computing…computing….” is data gathering and “estimating….” is an insignificant extra-solution activity, namely data gathering; and the processor is recited at such a high level of generality that they cannot be considered to indicate a particular machine, or even to identify a particular field-of-use or technological environment. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea, and would monopolize it across a broad range of practical applications, rather than being integrated into a particular practical application. The claim recites in the preamble that the method is “computer-implemented”, and the body of the claim recites “a hardware processor”, but the recitation of a general-purpose computer used merely as a tool to perform the abstract is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f), for instance).
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 8 recites an apparatus comprising a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium….” and claim 15 recites a system which do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a hardware processor. In other words, the apparatus claim and the system claim are no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the system and product claim recite generic computer components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 add limitation of “wherein the water saturation is a calculation…” which is a mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 add limitation of “wherein PRT types are determined using a rock quality value generated by a petrophysical rock type classification model” which is a mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 add limitation of “wherein the rock quality value is associated with petrophysical rock types…applied to the PRT” which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, add limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20a dd limitation which is a mathematical calculation merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 add limitation which is a calculation and data which merely extend the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 1 and similar claims 8 and 15, as best understood, Michel et al., “Rock-typing In Carbonates: A Critical Review of Clustering Methods”, 2014 discloses a computer-implemented method for estimating water encroachment and bound fluid, the method comprising: computing, using at least one hardware processor, a bulk volume of water (BVW) per petrophysical rock type (PRT) by multiplying porosity and water saturation for respective PRT types across multiple wells (please see Pages 5 and 6: driven clustering methods); however, Michel et al. does not disclose “computing…a Buckles Number for the respective PRT types…and estimating…water saturation in unseen wells using the Buckles Number, porosity, and PRT, and simultaneously estimating bound fluid for the unseen wells using the PRT and the Buckles Number per PRT”.
Regarding claims 1 and similar claims 8 and 15, as best understood, KGS.ku.edu [online], “PfEFFER Concepts,” July 2010, retrieved on December 15, 2023, retrieved from URL <https://www.kgs.ku.edu/software/PfEFFER-java/HELP/PfEFFER/Pfeffer-theory4.html#productivity>, 8 pages, discloses a computer-implemented method for estimating water encroachment and bound fluid, the method comprising: computing, using at least one hardware processor, a bulk volume of water (BVW) per petrophysical rock type (PRT) by multiplying porosity and water saturation for respective PRT types across multiple wells (Pages 1 and 2: BVW calculation, also see plot in FIG. 10 at Page 2);
“computing, using the at least one hardware processor, a Buckles Number for the respective PRT types across multiple wells based on respective BVW” (Please see KGS.ku.edu: Pages 2-7 and Fig. 15 for Location of Buckles lines on the Pickett plot of Rottweiler Sandstone data).
However, KGS.Ku.edu “does not explicitly disclose “estimating, using the at least one hardware processor, water saturation in unseen wells using the Buckles Number, porosity, and PRT, and simultaneously estimating bound fluid for the unseen wells using the PRT and the Buckles Number per PRT.”
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “estimating, using the at least one hardware processor, water saturation in unseen wells using the Buckles Number, porosity, and PRT, and simultaneously estimating bound fluid for the unseen wells using the PRT and the Buckles Number per PRT” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hursan et al. (USPAP. 20170328847) discloses systems and methods for determining characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir. Embodiments include conducting a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging operation of a targeted reservoir section of a wellbore extending into a hydrocarbon reservoir to generate a NMR log of the targeted reservoir section, conducting a resistivity logging of the targeted reservoir section to generate an uninvaded water saturation (S.sub.w) log of the targeted reservoir section, determining for each of a plurality of depths in the section, a T.sub.2 cutoff point based on values of the NMR and S.sub.w logs, identifying a subset of the T.sub.2 cutoff points that exhibit a hyperbolic trend, determining a theoretical cutoff curve corresponding to the subset of the T.sub.2 cutoff points, determining a free water level (FWL) of the reservoir based on the theoretical cutoff curve, and determining a rock type of the reservoir based on the theoretical cutoff curve” (Abstract; Pars. 35-64).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 7, 2025