DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed on March 23rd, 2023. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are objected to because of informalities
Claim 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogulu, Yusuf Serdar. Modeling of well productivity in perforated completions using near-wellbore grid generation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 in view of Hossain, Mohammed Enamul, Mohammad Tamim, and NM Anisur Rahman. "Roles of Pressure and Flow Rate in Defining the Radius of Drainage." presentation at the 4th International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2 (4). 2001.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogulu, Yusuf Serdar. Modeling of well productivity in perforated completions using near-wellbore grid generation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 in view of Hossain, Mohammed Enamul, Mohammad Tamim, and NM Anisur Rahman. "Roles of Pressure and Flow Rate in Defining the Radius of Drainage." presentation at the 4th International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2 (4). 2001 as taken in further view of Flandrin, Nicolas, Houman Borouchaki, and Chakib Bennis. "3D hybrid mesh generation for reservoir simulation." International journal for numerical methods in engineering 65.10 (2006): 1639-1672 and in further view of Lee, M., Andreas Eckert, and Runar Nygaard. "Mesh optimization for finite element models of wellbore stress analysis." ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA, 2011.
This action is non-final
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 Interpretation
Representative claim 6 and its parallels recite “large enough” – objective standard by way of representative examples for this relative term is in ¶¶ 33 and 39.
The claim is interpreted in view of the representative examples for an objective standard. Should it be intended to limit to one of these embodiments, the claim must expressly recite that embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “a size…” twice. The Examiner suggests that when having two distinct elements with the same term to use a disambiguating modifier, e.g. first/second/third.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 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. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
Claim 5 recites “far-field”, however “far” is a relative term and there is no objective standard in the specification (e.g. ¶¶ 16, 31, 39, 41) for POSITA to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. To clarify, the context of the specification conveys that “far-field” are areas/volumes of the model that are “far” from the borehole, however the specification does not provide an objective standard to ascertain what is “far” and what is not “far” from the borehole. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 12 and 19 rejected under similar rationales.
Examiner notes that if this is intended to claim the following subject matter of ¶ 44: “Moreover, in the rough modelling, the pressure variation far from the wellbore (e.g., at least a threshold distance from the well bore) can be smaller than a threshold ( e.g., nearly constant or linear) and therefore, in this case, a coarse mesh can yield accurate pressure prediction in the rough model 214” it does not do so expressly, however if the subject matter in ¶ 44 is the intended scope then the Examiner suggests amending the claim to expressly recited it instead of using the relative term “far”, as this would address the § 112(b) issue.
MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV): “A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005));”
Claim 4 recites the phrase “fine meshing”, wherein the term “fine” is a subjective term that renders the claim indefinite because there is no standard provided in the instant disclosure (¶¶ 33, 48, 57) for POSITA to ascertain the scope of the present claims without relying on their own unrestrained, subjective opinion when practicing the invention.
Claims 11 and 18 rejected under similar rationales.
To clarify on the issue, Examiner notes that the issue of the claim as of now is that it requires a “fine meshing”, but there is nothing that it is “fine” relative to in the claim itself, rendering it indefinite as no objective standard is in the specification for what is a “fine meshing”.
Specification also recites, e.g. at ¶ 44, that there is a “coarse mesh” associated with a “rough model” (the exemplary version of the first model as claimed) – if claim 4, and parallels, are intended to merely convey it has a finer mesh than the coarse mesh of the rough/first model, then the Examiner suggests amending the claim to expressly recited this, akin to the use of the relative term “smaller” in claim 3, but in claim 3 it requires expressly it is merely “smaller than the size of the first model” [i.e. the objective standard of what is small is expressly in the claim].
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 of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 8 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 15 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 8 and 15, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
calculating a radius of fluids and a radius of pressure associated with a borehole, the radius of pressure being related to a fluid flow; - see ¶¶ 34-36, 51, 55. Math calculations in textual form.
generating a first model, wherein a size of the first model is larger than the calculated radius of pressure; determining a dynamic pressure based on the first model; - math calculations in textual form. ¶ 55: “The dynamic pressure boundary can be calculated from a rough model.” ¶ 16: “The dynamic pressure boundary can be calculated from a rough model as described in more detail below.” See ¶¶ 26, 41, 44-46, and ¶ 47: “With the fixed boundary condition in Equation (6) on a larger model discussed above, any of the above rough modelling methods can be solved to obtain the general pressure field and monitor the pressure at the pre-designed…”
and modelling a borehole fluid flow in the borehole based on the second model, wherein the dynamic pressure is used as a boundary condition of the second model. – math calculations in textual form, wherein the use of the dynamic pressure as a boundary condition is given in mathematical prose in equation 10 in ¶ 48.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
calculating a radius of fluids and a radius of pressure associated with a borehole, the radius of pressure being related to a fluid flow; - see ¶¶ 34-36, 51, 55. Math calculations in textual form. The math calculations are also simple enough to be done mentally, e.g. see eq. 11-12, wherein a person is readily able to calculate this using a calculator and/or pen and paper.
…
and modelling a borehole fluid flow in the borehole based on the second model, wherein the dynamic pressure is used as a boundary condition of the second model. – A mental process, given the generality recited. To clarify, a person, e.g. a peteroleum engineer, is readily able to mentally create and evaluate a simple set of equations so as to model the borehole fluid-flow, e.g. using simple 1D equations of a pipe, a variable, e.g. the outlet pressure of the pipe, set to the dynamic pressure as a boundary condition.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “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.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Preambles of claim 8 and 15
Claim 1 does not recite the use of a computer. See MPEP § 2111 for In re Prater.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
As a point of clarity, RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Preambles of claim 8 and 15
Claim 1 does not recite the use of a computer. See MPEP § 2111 for In re Prater.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 – mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea, akin to using the trained ANN of example 47. See ¶¶ 21, 31, 50.
Claim 3 – further limiting the abstract idea
Claim 4 – adding a mental step as well as a math concept in geometry. To clarify, meshing is merely the geometrical concept of dividing a region into a series of smaller regions, e.g. dividing a cylinder representing a pipe into a series of shorter cylinders, which is math calculations/relationships in the mathematical field of geometry, and readily done mentally as well, or with pen and paper as a physical aid to the mental process.
Claim 5 – merely further limiting the abstract idea
Claim 6 – merely further limiting the abstract idea by specifying a desired result of the calculated radius of pressure – see ¶ 54: “At block 602, the process can include generating a first model ( e.g., a rough model) wherein the size of the first model ( e.g., a rough model) is larger than the calculated radius of pressure (radius of pressure (rp)). In some examples, the rough model 210 can have a large model size rMto reduce or avoid the boundary effect.” – see ¶¶ 51-53 to further clarify.
Claim 7 – rejected under a similar rationale as claim 4, i.e. 3D meshing is readily a mental process (e.g. meshing a cube into a series of smaller cubes, such as using pen and paper as a physical aid so a person can mentally visualize this, or write down in tabular form the dimensions and locations of the smaller cubes in the larger cube), as well as a math concept.
Remaining dependent claims rejected under similar rationales as their representative claims above.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogulu, Yusuf Serdar. Modeling of well productivity in perforated completions using near-wellbore grid generation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 in view of Hossain, Mohammed Enamul, Mohammad Tamim, and NM Anisur Rahman. "Roles of Pressure and Flow Rate in Defining the Radius of Drainage." presentation at the 4th International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2 (4). 2001.
Examiner also notes that a term in the primary reference Dogulu has its meaning explained by Hossain. MPEP § 2131.01: “Normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. However, a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to: …(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or”
Regarding Claim 1
Dogulu teaches:
A method comprising:
calculating a radius of fluids and … associated with a borehole, …
generating a first model, wherein a size of the first model is larger than the … radius of pressure;
determining a dynamic pressure based on the first model;
generating a second model, wherein a size of the second model is larger than the calculated radius of fluids;
and modelling a borehole fluid flow in the borehole based on the second model, wherein the dynamic pressure is used as a boundary condition of the second model. ‘
Dogulu, abstract, incl. last two paragraphs, and see chapter 4, page 26, ¶¶ 1-2: “The first stage of constructing a numerical model is to form the computational grid. The overall problem will be divided into two sub-domains. The near-wellbore and the outer reservoir grids will be coupled during the solution process. A fine grid representing the wellbore/perforation geometry is to be generated by using an algebraic grid generation technique. The mesh is basically a boundary fitted grid, in which the inner boundary is defined by the wellbore and the outer boundary by a regular rectangular block edge. This fine grid solution will interact with the coarse reservoir solution through its boundaries by the use of local grid refinement techniques.”, then see chapter 9, incl. p. 189: “The near-wellbore model development explained in the previous chapters was aimed mainly to model the details of a perforated completion in the vicinity of a wellbore. The grid generated for this purpose is centered at the wellbore and extends typically 40 to 60 wellbore radii outward… Thus the near wellbore model grid can not be extended all the way to the outer boundaries of a reservoir. Using constant pressure outer boundaries for the near-wellbore grid biases the results towards higher productivities than would be obtained with large infinite outer boundaries… The most practical method of solving this dilemma would be to use two different grid levels, a coarse-level grid for modeling the reservoir and its boundaries and a fine level grid for localized well completion geometry details…” – to clarify, the first model is the “coarse-level grid for modeling the reservoir and its boundaries”, and the second model is the “near wellbore model” of Dogulu
then see § 9.1: “…In the LGR method, hypothetical interface nodes are established in between two grid levels. Figure 9.1 shows an interface in a locally refined grid structure. In this figure the circular nodes are the fine grid points, whereas the rectangular symbols represent the coarse grid locations. The nodes that are shown with stars are hypothetical grid nodes which are obtained by the use of an interpolation routine. After obtaining the interpolated values at the intermediate grid nodes, the overall solution can be obtained by two different methods… On the second technique, different grid levels are solved separately using the interpolated interface pressure values as non-homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions [example of a dynamic pressure boundary condition]… The second technique was used in this study with a modification which is called the Rate Consistent Domain Coupling Method…”
see fig. 9.1 to clarify on the coupling of the grids and the interpolated interface grid points locations, including that the second model (the near-wellbore model) is smaller than the first model (the coarse reservoir model)
then see § 9.2 to clarify on the dynamic pressure: “The basic idea of the Rate Consistent Domain Coupling Method is to combine two completely different grid structures at different scales through their boundaries. The fine-level near-wellbore grid is embedded inside a coarse-level grid block in order to represent a completed wellbore. The actual reservoir boundaries are placed around the coarse-level reservoir grid, so their effects can be felt by the fine-level grid which models the perforated wellbore… The grid coupling process is illustrated in Figure 9.2. The main concept is to obtain a flow-rate-consistent communication between the different grid levels… Because of the relatively small dimension of the near-wellbore area compared to the rest of the drainage area modeled, the simulation is initiated with very small time step size…. Next, the coarse system is solved for pressure values at that given time-step. Once the pressure solution is available, an interpolation is performed to estimate the pressure values at the boundaries of the coarse-level grid block where the near-wellbore grid is embedded. For the next time-step, these interpolated pressures are used as boundary value specifications around the inner grid to obtain a new flow rate for that time-step. This process is repeated at every time-step to establish the communication between the two grid levels.” – see figure 9.2 to further clarify, and pgs. 195-198
with respect to the second model size and the calculating limitation, note in table 9.1: “System specifications used for the coupled model validation System specifications used for the coupled model validation” incl.: “Drainage Area 900 x 900 ft.” (§ 9.2.1, ¶ 2: “A 900 ft. by 900 ft. reservoir section was discretized with 9 blocks in each directions.”) and “Wellbore Radius” of “0.5 ft” - then, see § 7.1: “The grid generation code is used to build the wellbore geometry for a perforated interval. In this code, the user first specifies the ratio of the near-wellbore system radii which is the drainage area radius divided by the wellbore radius. This ratio can not be changed during the course of a designed run. A typical value for re/rw ratio is 60 (distance far enough for the radial flow to develop fully within the drainage area).” - i.e. this is calculating a radius of fluids, wherein the second model is large enough that it has a “distance far enough for the radial flow to develop fully within the drainage area” – e.g. see table 8.1, and figure 8.2 – i.e. it is larger than the radius where the fluid flow fully develops in
with respect to the first model size, see citations above for the second model size, and note in § 9.2: “Because of the relatively small dimension of the near-wellbore area compared to the rest of the drainage area modeled, the simulation is initiated with very small time step size.” – i.e. the first model is large enough to ensure that the radial fluid flow develops within the drainage region (§ 7.1), and the second model is the size of the “drainage area”
and note in § 7.1 ¶ 1 this clarifies the “drainage area” (the size of the first coarse model) is the variable “re” (“drainage area radius”), wherein in these sections it is merely stated that it is used – also, note that the grid, e.g. fig. 9.3 for the coarse model is larger then the radius of drainage, as it is a square encompassing the circle of the radius of the drainage area (i.e. the square is 900 ft x 900 ft in fig. 9.3, so this includes the radius the pressure/drainage, as well as extra area outside of a circle with a radius of 900 ft centered at the same point as the square)
As a point of clarity, the radius of drainage as taught by Dogulu is a radius of pressure. See Hossian, abstract: “For a given elapsed time since the production has begun through the well bore, pressure changes occur everywhere within certain region around the well bore. The apparent radius of this region is termed as the radius of drainage” which clarifies on the meaning of “radius of drainage” to POSITA. Should this (the drainage radius being a radius of pressure) be found to not be anticipated by Dogulu, then the Examiner notes that Dogulu as modified by Hossian, as discussed below, would teach this feature for the rationale stated below.
While Dogulu does not explicitly teach the following, Dogulu in view of Hossain teaches:
calculating …a radius of pressure associated with a borehole, the radius of pressure being related to a fluid flow;
See Dogulu, as cited above, for the drainage area and drainage radius/radius of pressure
As taken in view of Hossain, abstract, then see section “DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW RADIUS OF DRAINAGE EQUATION” – in particular, see equation 4 for an equation for calculating the “drainage radius”. To clarify, also see p. 39, col. 1, second to last paragraph: “…Thus, it has been established that the radius of drainage is related to the flow rate as well as pressure response of the well…” and the discussion: “In the present study, it has been established that the radius of drainage is related to the criterion values of pressure response of the well.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Dogulu on a system which created a coarse reservoir model to include the radius of drainage/pressure with the teachings from Hossain on a particular way of estimating the drainage radius. The motivation to combine would have been that “When one requires a higher precision in estimating the radius of drainage, the newly proposed equation (Equation (4)) will be useful…” (Hossain, Discussion section)
Regarding Claim 2
Dogulu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the borehole fluid flow is modelled using at least one of a finite elements method, a finite difference method, and a finite volume method. (Dogulu, abstract ¶ 3 and § 3.2, ¶ 1 teaches it uses a “finite difference” method)
Regarding Claim 3
Dogulu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the size of the second model is smaller than the size of the first model. (Dogulu, as cited above for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 4
Dogulu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second model uses a fine meshing to model the borehole fluid flow. (Dogulu, as cited above for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 5
Dogulu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first model uses a fixed far-field pressure on an outer surface of the first model. (Dogulu, as cited above for claim 1, p. 198 ¶¶ 1-3: “When a constant pressure boundary was specified at the outer boundary [of the coarse model], the solution at the wellbore should reach a true steady-state flow condition…The pressure solution of the coupled model obtained with the constant pressure outer boundary case is given in Figure 9.7.” – see citations above, including in this § 9.2.1 of Dogulu, which clarifies that the pressure values for the fine near-wellbore model were “interpolated pressure values that would act as boundary specifications for the inner grid” – see § 9.3.1 to clarify: “The cases tested are illustrated in Figure 9.8 a, b and c where the outer drainage area boundaries are set as all-sides constant pressure, one-side constant pressure and all sides no-flow, respectively…The drainage area configurations shown in Figure 9.8 were designed and tested
using both Peaceman’s well modeling and the coupled near-wellbore model” – also see § 9.3.2 ¶ 1
Regarding Claim 6
Dogulu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the size of the first model is large enough to avoid a boundary effect.
First, to clarify on the BRI of boundary effect, see instant ¶ 16: “In some examples, the systems and techniques described herein can avoid boundary effects by applying a dynamic pressure condition instead of a fixed far-field pressure condition on an outer surface boundary of a detailed model. The dynamic pressure boundary can be calculated from a rough model as
described in more detail below. In some examples, the size of the wellbore region being modelled can be larger than the pressure propagation. Moreover, in some cases, a coarse mesh can ignore the detailed features of the well bore and probe.” and ¶ 21: “…That is, the larger the
numerical model size, the closer the pressure on the outer surface of the model can be to the far field pressure, thereby lessening the effect of the boundary effect on the model.” – and ¶ 33: “The rough model 210 has a larger model size rMthan the detailed model 220 and/or can have a size rMthat is larger than a threshold ( e.g., the size can relate to a data size, a number of variables/parameters, and/or a number of data objects) to reduce or avoid the boundary effect.”
See Dogulu as was cited above, noting in particular chapter 9, ¶ 1: “Thus the near wellbore model grid can not be extended all the way to the outer boundaries of a reservoir. Using constant pressure outer boundaries for the near-wellbore grid biases the results towards higher productivities than would be obtained with large infinite outer boundaries…The most practical method of solving this dilemma would be to use two different grid levels, a coarse-level grid for modeling the reservoir and its boundaries and a fine level grid for localized well completion geometry details.”- see the clarifying citations above where Dogulu is interpolating the pressure values from the coarse model at the boundary with the fine near-wellbore model instead of using “constant pressure outer boundaries” for the near-wellbore model – and see the citations above for claim 5, i.e. Dogulu’s coarse model is larger in size then the near-wellbore model so as to avoid/reduce the boundary effect
Regarding claims 8-13, 15-20
Claims 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under similar rationales as their representative claims above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogulu, Yusuf Serdar. Modeling of well productivity in perforated completions using near-wellbore grid generation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 in view of Hossain, Mohammed Enamul, Mohammad Tamim, and NM Anisur Rahman. "Roles of Pressure and Flow Rate in Defining the Radius of Drainage." presentation at the 4th International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2 (4). 2001 as taken in further view of Flandrin, Nicolas, Houman Borouchaki, and Chakib Bennis. "3D hybrid mesh generation for reservoir simulation." International journal for numerical methods in engineering 65.10 (2006): 1639-1672 and in further view of Lee, M., Andreas Eckert, and Runar Nygaard. "Mesh optimization for finite element models of wellbore stress analysis." ARMA US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA, 2011.
Regarding Claim 7
While Dogulu, in view of Hossain, does not explicitly teach the following, Dogulu, in view of Hossain, and Flandrin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) model with one or more meshes… (Dogulu, as cited above, e.g. the abstract: “The three-dimensional single phase transient flow simulator has been developed using the finite-difference technique.” – wherein, as discussed above for claim 6, the first coarse model is larger than the fine model of Dogulu, and see fig. 9.3 which shows the mesh of the coarse model as visually depicted in fig. 9.3. For clarification, see § 9.1 as cited above, include seeing ¶ 1: “localized mesh refinement technique (LGR)” and see ¶¶ 2-3 as cited above
However, Dogulu, as cited above, teaches that it’s a 2D mesh for the reservoir coarse model (e.g. cf. 9.3), but the 3D model with meshes would have been obvious when Dogulu, as cited above, was taken in view of Flandrin, abstract, then see § 2. For more relevance, note fig. 1 on Flandrin, as compared to the citations to Dogulu above, then see fig. 26 which visually depicts the reservoir mesh, the transition mesh, and the near-wellbore mesh in 3D
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Dogulu on a structure grid approach with a coarse reservoir model and a fine model for near wellbore with the teachings from Flandrin on a 3D hybrid mesh model ( note § 2 the bullet points in particular: “A structured CPG grid, respecting the geological features, is used to describe the reservoir
field. • For more accuracy at the drainage areas, a structured radial circular mesh adapts locally
to the radial nature of the flows around the wells. • Finally, these structured meshes are connected together by the use of unstructured polyhedral meshes respecting conformity and finite volume properties.”): “. The motivation to combine would have been that “While the structured grid generation is a well-known process, the construction of the unstructured transition mesh in 3D represents a major issue. The structured CPG mesh of the reservoir
grid is constructed through the use of transfinite interpolations, projections onto the geological interfaces (horizons and faults) combined with a relaxation procedure [7]. The structured radial
mesh is computed using the well’s trajectory, the drainage area radius and the progression of
cells’ size. The separate construction of these grids leads to incompatibilities due to a lack of
common structure and a transition mesh is needed to perform a correct connection…. In order to generate such a transition mesh, a new method using power diagrams [8, 9] was
introduced in Reference [6]. As a generalization of Voronoï diagrams [10, 11], power diagrams
provide convex polyhedra verifying the above orthogonal property. In addition, these allow to
provide the mesh conformity between the transition mesh and the structured meshes, which
would not be generally possible using Voronoï diagrams. The goal of this work is to extend
the construction of the transition mesh based on power diagrams into 3D.” – also, see § 1, second to last paragraph: “It combines the advantages of the structured and unstructured approaches, while limiting their disadvantages” as well as § 8: “…Hence, the efficiency of structured grids is kept, while accuracy is improved at the drainage areas. Robust and efficient algorithms have been implemented to generate such a transition mesh, taking into account problems of mesh conformity in 3D…” -also ,see § 1 ¶¶ 1-2, including: “A better comprehension of the physical phenomena requires us to simulate 3D multiphase flows in increasingly complex geological structures, in the vicinity of several types of singularities such as complex wells. All these complexities must initially be taken into account within the mesh construction. The mesh must faithfully represent all this heterogeneous information.”
While Dogulu, in view of Hossain, does not explicitly teach the following, Dogulu, in view of Hossain, Flandrin, and Lee teaches:… that are larger than a threshold size (Dogulu, as was taken in combination above where in the coarse model was a model of the reservoir (see citations above), in further view of Lee, abstract and § 1 last paragraph, then see § 4.2 noting the first and last bullet points in particular, also note figure 2. and accompanying description for relevance, then see § 5.1.2: “…Choosing the overall model size is the first step when modeling a geometric structure… The sensitivity analysis of the model size shows that the finite element results are affected by the model size, not only as expected for the far-field region but also in the near-wellbore region (Figure 5)…. The most significant observation is that larger model sizes provide an overall better fit of the model results to the analytical solution. Further, increasing the model size specifically improves the model results for the hoop stress at the borehole wall at 90° (Table 2), which shows the largest error in the base model. However, the errors at the borehole wall do not decrease to a satisfactory degree… A model with dimensions of at least 15 to 20 times [example of a threshold size to exceed] of the borehole diameter produces a result in good agreement with the analytical solutions for the effective stresses, i.e. larger model sizes do not improve the result any further” – for further clarification, see § 5.1.5 # 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Dogulu on a coupled coarse reservoir model with a near-wellbore model with the teachings from Lee on choosing the overall model size (Lee, § 5.1.2) with a similar model as Dogulu (see Lee, fig. 2 and accompanying description). The motivation to combine would have been that Lee’s technique ensures that the model “produces a result in good agreement with the analytical solutions for the effective stresses” wherein “larger model sizes do not improve the result any further” (Lee, § 5.1.2) – to further clarify, see § 7 ¶¶ 2-3 and see the abstract as well: “This study presents a parametric study of the meshing parameters mesh density, element type, and model size for a 2D vertical wellbore model under three different types of boundary conditions, and a guideline for mesh optimization is provided… Utilizing a non-optimized mesh for wellbore stress analysis may lead to a significant misinterpretation of the minimum usable mud weight and borehole collapse may result.”
Regarding Claim 14.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Oliveira et al., US 11,091,989. Abstract, cf. 2 and 5, and accompanying descriptions.
Edwards et al. US 2005/0015231. Abstract, cf. 1-8 and accompanying descriptions. Also see figures 18-21 and accompanying description.
Jenny et al., US 2005/0203725. Abstract, cf. 6 and accompanying description.
Chen et al., US 2010/0312535. Abstract, cf. 3 and accompanying description.
Ahammad, Mohammad Jalal. "A CFD and experimental approach for simulating the coupled flow dynamics of near wellbore and reservoir." (2019). Abstract, pages 38-46, 74-46.
Anderson, D. M., and L. Mattar. "An improved pseudo-time for gas reservoirs with significant transient flow." Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 46.07 (2007). Page 3
Atkinson, Colin, Franck Monmont, and Alexander Zazovsky. "Flow performance of perforated completions." Transport in porous media 80.2 (2009): 305-328. Abstract and §§ 2, 4-5.1
Dogulu, Y. S. "Modeling of well productivity in perforated completions." SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. SPE, 1998. Related to relied upon Dogulu PhD Dissertation.
Forsyth, Peter A. "A control-volume, finite-element method for local mesh refinement in thermal reservoir simulation." SPE Reservoir Engineering 5.04 (1990): 561-566. Abstract, Introduction last paragraph.
Garavand, Aboozar, et al. "Numerical modeling of plastic deformation and failure around a wellbore in compaction and dilation modes." International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics 44.6 (2020): 823-850. Pages 8 and 12.
Guyaguler, Baris, et al. "Near-well-subdomain simulations for accurate inflow-performance-relationship calculation to improve stability of reservoir/network coupling." SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 14.05 (2011): 634-643.
Abstract, pages 641-642.
Hossain, M. Enamul, M. Tamim, and NM Anisur Rahman. "Effects of criterion values on estimation of the radius of drainage and stabilization time." Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 46.03 (2007). Equations 1-2.
Huang, Jixiang. Analysis of Hydraulic Fracture Propagation and Well Performance using Geomechanical Models and Fast Marching Method. Diss. 2017. § 4.2.1
Kuchuk, Fikri J. "Radius of investigation for reserve estimation from pressure transient well tests." SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. SPE, 2009. See pages 1-2 and 8-12
Kurtoglu, Basak, et al. "Semianalytical representation of wells and near-well flow convergence in numerical reservoir simulation." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?. SPE, 2008. Abstract, pages 2-3, 6.
Lezhnev, Konstantin, Aleksei Roshchektaev, and Vsevolod Pashkin. "Coupled Reservoir–Well Model of Sand Production Processes." SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference. SPE, 2019. Pages 5-7
Manivannan, Sivaprasath. Measuring permeability vs depth in the unlined section of a wellbore using the descent of a fluid column made of two distinct fluids: inversion workflow, laboratory & in-situ tests. Diss. Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2018. §§ 2.3.5, 3.2.3, 4.2.
Sadrnejad, Seyed Amirodin, Hasan Ghasemzadeh, and Ardabili Ahmad Ali Khodaei. "A finite element model for simulating flow around a well with helically symmetric perforations." (2018): 159-188. Abstract, §§ 1-3
Salmani, Niloofar, Rouhollah Fatehi, and Reza Azin. "A Double-Scale method for near-well flow in reservoir simulation." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022): 109487. § 3.1
Sobbi, F. A., and A. Badakhshan. "Radius of investigation for well tests in dual porosity reservoirs." PETSOC Annual Technical Meeting. PETSOC, 1994. Introduction.
Sun, Datong, et al. "Comparison of skin factors for perforated completions calculated with computational-fluid-dynamics software and the Karakas-Tariq semianalytical model." SPE Drilling & Completion 28.01 (2013): 21-33. Abstract, pages 22-23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights