DETAILED ACTION
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
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 3/30/2023. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional US Patent Application Number 63/325,955 filed on 03/31/2022, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 10/12/2023 and 11/10/2023 have been reviewed and considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “capture device” in as recited in claims 2 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification provided the following structures for the claim element a “capture device”:
“[t]he capture device 50 may be, for example, computerized tomography (CT), or any other mechanism for obtaining in-situ images and measurements of the subterranean reservoir.” (para. [0049]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to abstract ideas:
“generating a pore network model of the subterranean reservoir representing a structure of the subterranean reservoir and conditions in the subterranean reservoir, the structure of the subterranean reservoir being represented by the pore network model as a plurality of pores connected to each other by a plurality of throats, the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats containing components including hydrocarbons” (e.g., a mental process);
“establishing operational parameters for injection of a solvent into the subterranean reservoir represented by the pore network model, wherein the solvent when injected becomes one of the components in at least one from the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process; as drafted the operational parameters directed to solvent injection are understood to be model inputs rather than limitations directed to a physical injection operation);
“defining, for each of the plurality of pores, a first set of characteristics based on a molar density of each component in a pore” (e.g., a mental process);
“deriving, for each of the plurality of pores based on phase conditions in the pore, a second set of characteristics for the pore from the first set of characteristics for the pore” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determining, for each of the plurality of throats, phase conditions in a throat from the plurality of throats based on the phase conditions in ones of the plurality of pores that are connected to the throat” (e.g., a mental process);
“determining a molar balance of the components within the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats in the pore network model based on the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores and the phase conditions for each of the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determining an updated first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the molar balance of the components within the pore network model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“repeating (ii) to (v) over a predetermined time at consecutive times to determine hydrocarbon extraction from the subterranean reservoir over time given the operational parameters for injection of the solvent based on changes in the molar balance of the components over time representing mass transfer of the components within the pore network model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“adjusting the operational parameters for injection of the solvent and repeating (c) with the adjusted operational parameters to identify operational parameters for injection of the solvent that provide a predetermined hydrocarbon extraction” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 11 recites the following limitations directed to abstract ideas:
“receiving information about properties of the subterranean reservoir” (e.g., a mental process);
“generate a pore network model of the subterranean reservoir… the pore network model representing a structure of the subterranean reservoir and conditions in the subterranean reservoir, the structure of the subterranean reservoir being represented by the pore network model as a plurality of pores connected to each other by a plurality of throats, the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats containing components including hydrocarbons” (e.g., a mental process);
“establish operational parameters for injection of a solvent into the subterranean reservoir represented by the pore network model, wherein the solvent when injected becomes one of the components in at least one from the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process; as drafted the operational parameters directed to solvent injection are understood to be model inputs rather than limitations directed to a physical injection operation);
“define, for each of the plurality of pores, a first set of characteristics based on a molar density of each component in a pore” (e.g., a mental process);
“derive, for each of the plurality of pores based on phase conditions in the pore, a second set of characteristics for the pore from the first set of characteristics for the pore” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine, for each of the plurality of throats, phase conditions in a throat from the plurality of throats based on the phase conditions in ones of the plurality of pores that are connected to the throat” (e.g., a mental process);
“determine a molar balance of the components within the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats in the pore network model based on the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores and the phase conditions for each of the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine an updated first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the molar balance of the components within the pore network model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“repeat (ii) to (v) over a predetermined time at consecutive times to determine hydrocarbon extraction from the subterranean reservoir over time given the operational parameters for injection of the solvent based on changes in the molar balance of the components over time representing mass transfer of the components within the pore network model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“adjust the operational parameters for injection of the solvent and repeating (c) with the adjusted operational parameters to identify operational parameters for injection of the solvent that provide a predetermined hydrocarbon extraction” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 20 recites the following limitations directed to abstract ideas:
“generate a pore network model of the subterranean reservoir representing a structure of the subterranean reservoir and conditions in the subterranean reservoir, the structure of the subterranean reservoir being represented by the pore network model as a plurality of pores connected to each other by a plurality of throats, the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats containing components including hydrocarbons” (e.g., a mental process);
“establish operational parameters for injection of a solvent into the subterranean reservoir represented by the pore network model, wherein the solvent when injected becomes one of the components in at least one from the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process; as drafted the operational parameters directed to solvent injection are understood to be model inputs rather than limitations directed to a physical injection operation);
“define, for each of the plurality of pores, a first set of characteristics based on a molar density of each component in a pore” (e.g., a mental process);
“derive, for each of the plurality of pores based on phase conditions in the pore, a second set of characteristics for the pore from the first set of characteristics for the pore” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine, for each of the plurality of throats, phase conditions in a throat from the plurality of throats based on the phase conditions in ones of the plurality of pores that are connected to the throat” (e.g., a mental process);
“determine a molar balance of the components within the plurality of pores and the plurality of throats in the pore network model based on the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores and the phase conditions for each of the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine an updated first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the molar balance of the components within the pore network model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“repeat (ii) to (v) over a predetermined time at consecutive times to determine hydrocarbon extraction from the subterranean reservoir over time given the operational parameters for injection of the solvent based on changes in the molar balance of the components over time representing mass transfer of the components within the pore network model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“adjust the operational parameters for injection of the solvent and repeating (c) with the adjusted operational parameters to identify operational parameters for injection of the solvent that provide a predetermined hydrocarbon extraction” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as generating a model and defining/deriving/determining various aspects of the model constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. Additionally, establishing and adjusting operational parameters (e.g., injection parameters used in the model) used in solving the model (e.g., generating a model outcome) are also directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, or combinations thereof.
Regarding mental processes, the MPEP states:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
Likewise, the MPEP states the following regarding mathematical calculations:
“[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C).
Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claims 1, 11, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 does not recite any limitations which constitute abstract ideas. For example, the recited operational injection parameters are merely features which are adjusted within a model and are not recited in a manner which requires an actual injection operation to occur.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
“[a] computer system… the computer system comprising” (e.g., generic recitation of computer components is directed to mere directive to apply a judicial exception; equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“an interface” (e.g., generic recitation of computer components is directed to mere directive to apply a judicial exception; equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“a processor” (e.g., generic recitation of computer components is directed to mere directive to apply a judicial exception; equivalent to reciting “apply it”)
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements:
“[a] computer readable medium having stored thereon statements and instructions” (e.g., generic recitation of computer components is directed to mere directive to apply a judicial exception; equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
The above identified limitations of claims 11 and 20 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 11 recites additional elements directed to generic computer components including “a computer system”; “an interface”; and “a processor.” Claim 20 recites additional elements directed to generic computer components including “[a] computer readable medium having stored thereon statements and instructions.” The inclusion of generic computer components in a claim which recites one or more judicial exceptions cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception. For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (MPEP 2106.05(f), Section 2). Accordingly, the above identified additional elements of claims 11 and 20 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites limitations directed to judicial exceptions including:
“classifying the properties of the subterranean reservoir representing the structure as representing pore, matrix or throat” (e.g., a mental process);
“generating the pore network model using the classified properties of pore for the plurality of pores and the classified properties of throat for the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“establishing the properties representing the conditions in the subterranean reservoir as initial conditions for the pore network model, the initial conditions including liquid saturation in each of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as classifying the structure of a reservoir, generating a model based on the classification, and establishing properties initialization properties of the model constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claim 2 recites abstract ideas.
Claim 2 also recites limitations directed to additional elements including “measuring, with at least one capture device, properties of subterranean reservoir representing the structure of the subterranean reservoir and the conditions in the subterranean reservoir.” Such limitations are directed to mere data gathering (e.g., insignificant extra-solution activity) in a particular field of use (e.g., computerized tomography) which cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. For example, regarding limitations directed to mere data gathering, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP 106.05(f)).
With continued regard for claim 2, the MPEP states the following regarding field of use limitations “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations directed to necessary data gathering in order to perform the abstract idea along with limitations which limit the field in which the abstract idea is applied cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claims 1 and 2.
Claim 3 recites limitations which further limit the manner in which the plurality of pores in claim 1 are defined. As identified in claim 1, the limitation directed to “defining, for each of the plurality of pores, a first set of characteristics based on a molar density of each component in a pore,” is directed to an abstract idea. Likewise, the following limitations of claim 3 are directed to abstract ideas:
“establishing a constant parameter to represent conditions used in thermodynamic flash calculations” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determining the molar density of each component in the pore network model for each of the plurality of pores as the first set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determining the molar density of each component in the pore network model and one of a gas pressure and a liquid pressure for each of the plurality of pores for the first set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determining the phase conditions in each of the plurality of pores by determining whether the components in each of the plurality of pores is in one phase or two phases where one phase is one of a liquid phase and a gas phase and two phases includes both the liquid phase and the gas phase” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“deriving, from the first set of characteristics, molar density of each component in the liquid phase, molar density of each component in the gas phase and saturation of the liquid phase for each of the plurality of pores that are in two phases as the second set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“deriving, from the first set of characteristics, a mole fraction of each component in the liquid phase, a mole fraction of each component in the gas phase, saturation of the liquid phase, and saturation of the gas phase for each of the plurality of pores that are in two phases as the second set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept).
For the same reasons as provided above with respect to claim 1 (e.g., see the above provided MPEP citations related to mental processes and abstract ideas), claim 3 recites a plurality of abstract ideas. Furthermore, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 4 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 3 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the limitation “determining the mole fraction of each component based on the molar density of each component for the first set of characteristics such that the first set of characteristics is the one of the gas pressure and the liquid pressure and the mole fraction of each component” constitutes an abstract idea directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept. Accordingly, claim 4 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 3, because claim 4 itself is abstract.
Claim 5 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 3 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 5 constitute abstract ideas:
“determining phase occupancy for each of the plurality of throats by determining whether the components in each of the plurality of throats is in one phase or two phases where one phase is one of a liquid phase and a gas phase and two phases includes both the liquid phase and the gas phase” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“determining phase conductivity of the liquid phase and the gas phase in each of the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process)
Accordingly, claim 5 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 3, because claim 5 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 6 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claims 1, 3, and 5 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 6 constitute abstract ideas:
“determining a representation for the molar balance for each component in the subterranean reservoir based on a geometry of the plurality of pores, a geometry of the plurality of throats, the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores, the second set of characteristics, molar density of each component in the subterranean reservoir, the phase conductivity in each of the plurality of throats, and pressure of each phase in each of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“employing a numerical analysis method to determine the molar balance for each component for each of the plurality of pores based on the representation of the molar balance for each component and the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determining a change in the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the molar balance from the numerical analysis method” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“prior to repeating (ii) to (v) over the predetermined time at consecutive times, iteratively repeating (ii) to (v) for a current time of the consecutive times until the change in the first set of characteristics is less than a predetermined change with respect to a change in the first set of characteristics from a previous iteration at the current time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“updating the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the change in the first set of characteristics determined based on the molar balance from the numerical analysis method” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 6 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claims 1, 3, and 5 because claim 6 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 7 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 1 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 7 constitute abstract ideas:
“determining a Jacobian matrix representing a rate of change of the representation of the molar balance with respect to a rate of change of the first set of characteristics” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“employing a fully implicit numerical analysis method to determine the molar balance for each component for each of the plurality of pores using the Jacobian matrix” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 7 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 1 because claim 7 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 8 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 1 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 8 constitute abstract ideas:
“updating the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on a change of the molar balance of the components for a corresponding one of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 8 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 1 because claim 8 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 9 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 1 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 9 constitute abstract ideas:
“adjusting a time step between the consecutive times if a change in a predetermined characteristic between consecutive times is greater than predetermined amount” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“repeating (ii) to (v) at a new time which is the time step from a current time until the new time is the predetermined time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 9 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 1 because claim 9 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 10 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 1 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 10 constitute abstract ideas:
“determining the hydrocarbon extraction from the subterranean reservoir based on a difference in the molar balance in the pore network model at a previous consecutive time to the molar balance in the pore network model at a current time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 10 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 1 because claim 10 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 12 recites limitations directed to judicial exceptions including:
“classify the properties of the subterranean reservoir representing the structure as representing pore, matrix or throat” (e.g., a mental process);
“generate the pore network model using the classified properties of pore for the plurality of pores and the classified properties of throat for the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“establish the properties representing the conditions in the subterranean reservoir as initial conditions for the pore network model, the initial conditions including liquid saturation in each of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as classifying the structure of a reservoir, generating a model based on the classification, and establishing properties initialization properties of the model constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claim 12 recites abstract ideas.
Claim 12 also recites limitations directed to additional elements including:
“measuring the properties of the subterranean reservoir, the properties representing the structure of the subterranean reservoir and the conditions in the subterranean reservoir” (e.g., extra-solution activity directed to mere data gathering); and
“a capture device… the capture device being in communication with the interface to provide the information about the properties of the subterranean reservoir” (e.g., indicative of a field of use and extra-solution activity of receiving/transmitting data over a network).
Such limitations are directed to mere data gathering (e.g., insignificant extra-solution activity) in a particular field of use (e.g., computerized tomography) along with data transfer over a network (e.g., insignificant extra solution activity) which cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. For example, regarding limitations directed to mere data gathering, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP 106.05(f)).
With continued regard for claim 12, the MPEP states the following regarding field of use limitations “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the MPEP states the following regarding transferring data over a network (e.g., between a computerized tomographic device and a computer system which performs computations on the data): “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);… iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (MPEP 2106.05 (d), Section II).
Accordingly, the limitations directed to additional elements as recited in claim 12 cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claims 11 and 12.
Claim 13 recites limitations which further limit the manner in which the plurality of pores in claim 11 are defined. As identified in claim 11, the limitation directed to “define, for each of the plurality of pores, a first set of characteristics based on a molar density of each component in a pore,” is directed to an abstract idea. Likewise, the following limitations of claim 13 are directed to abstract ideas:
“establish a constant parameter to represent conditions used in thermodynamic flash calculations” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine the molar density of each component in the pore network model for each of the plurality of pores as the first set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine the molar density of each component in the pore network model and one of a gas pressure and a liquid pressure for each of the plurality of pores for the first set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine the phase conditions in each of the plurality of pores by determining whether the components in each of the plurality of pores is in one phase or two phases where one phase is one of a liquid phase and a gas phase and two phases includes both the liquid phase and the gas phase” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“derive, from the first set of characteristics, molar density of each component in the liquid phase, molar density of each component in the gas phase and saturation of the liquid phase for each of the plurality of pores that are in two phases as the second set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“derive, from the first set of characteristics, a mole fraction of each component in the liquid phase, a mole fraction of each component in the gas phase, saturation of the liquid phase, and saturation of the gas phase for each of the plurality of pores that are in two phases as the second set of characteristics” (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept).
For the same reasons as provided above with respect to claim 11 (e.g., see the above provided MPEP citations related to mental processes and abstract ideas), claim 13 recites a plurality of abstract ideas. Furthermore, claim 13 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 14 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claims 11 and 13 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 14 constitute abstract ideas:
“determine phase occupancy for each of the plurality of throats by determining whether the components in each of the plurality of throats is in one phase or two phases where one phase is one of a liquid phase and a gas phase and two phases includes both the liquid phase and the gas phase” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“determine phase conductivity of the liquid phase and the gas phase in each of the plurality of throats” (e.g., a mental process)
Accordingly, claim 14 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claims 11 and 13, because claim 14 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 15 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claims 11, 13, and 14 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 15 constitute abstract ideas:
“determine a representation for the molar balance for each component in the subterranean reservoir based on a geometry of the plurality of pores, a geometry of the plurality of throats, the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores, the second set of characteristics, molar density of each component in the subterranean reservoir, the phase conductivity in each of the plurality of throats, and pressure of each phase in each of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“employ a numerical analysis method to determine the molar balance for each component for each of the plurality of pores based on the representation of the molar balance for each component and the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“determine a change in the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the molar balance from the numerical analysis method” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“prior to repeating (ii) to (v) over the predetermined time at consecutive times, iteratively repeating (ii) to (v) for a current time of the consecutive times until the change in the first set of characteristics is less than a predetermined change with respect to a change in the first set of characteristics from a previous iteration at the current time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“update the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the change in the first set of characteristics determined based on the molar balance from the numerical analysis method” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 15 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claims 11, 13, and 14 because claim 15 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 16 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claims 11, 13, 14, and 15 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 16 constitute abstract ideas:
“determine a Jacobian matrix representing a rate of change of the representation of the molar balance with respect to a rate of change of the first set of characteristics” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“employ a fully implicit numerical analysis method to determine the molar balance for each component for each of the plurality of pores using the Jacobian matrix” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 16 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claims 11, 13, 14, and 15 because claim 16 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 17 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 11 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 17 constitute abstract ideas:
“update the first set of characteristics for each of the plurality of pores based on the change of the molar balance of the components for a corresponding one of the plurality of pores” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 17 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 11 because claim 17 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 18 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 11 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 18 constitute abstract ideas:
“adjust a time step between the consecutive times if a change in a predetermined characteristic between consecutive times is greater than predetermined amount” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“repeat (ii) to (v) at a new time which is the time step from a current time until the new time is the predetermined time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 18 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 11 because claim 18 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claim 19 functions to further define the abstract limitations of claim 11 in a manner which is itself, abstract. For example, the following limitations of claim 19 constitute abstract ideas:
“determine the hydrocarbon extraction from the subterranean reservoir based on a difference in the molar balance in the pore network model at a previous consecutive time to the molar balance in the pore network model at a current time” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Accordingly, claim 19 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 11 because claim 19 itself is abstract. Please see the above provided MPEP citations (e.g., provided with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20) regarding both mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Subject Matter not Rejected under Prior Art
Claims 1—20 are not rejected under a prior art rejection; however, claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claims are not allowable in the current form because they currently recite patent ineligible subject matter without significantly more.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while utilizing physics-based, numerical modelling for generating various production metrics associated with solvent injection (e.g., or more generally enhanced oil recovery) is well-known in the art of hydrocarbon extraction operations, the specific limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 were not found in the prior art in the combination recited at the time of examination. For example, the limitations directed to determinations made related to the phase conditions and molar balance in, specifically, the pore throats (e.g., as well as the pore bodies), were not found in the prior art of record at the time of examination.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Klemin et al. (US 20160305237 A1) which is directed to generating a pore network model which accounts for pore and pore throat interaction and includes values related to petrophysical properties, fluid low parameters, and porosity values from core analysis. Similar to the instant claims, the published application of Klemin discloses utilizing computerized tomography to construct a three-dimensional static pore network model. However, the reference does not disclose utilizing the generated pore network model to iteratively model a solvent injection operation as recited in the claims;
Issued US Patent to Okuno et al. (US 12031087 B2) which is directed to modeling a solvent and/or surfactant injection operation to generate model outcomes based on various injection characteristics in order to select operational injection characteristics which achieve optimized production characteristics (e.g., as determined by the model). See FIG. 2;
Issued US Patent to Andersen et al. (US 10465483 B2) which is directed to generating a digital rock model from a core sample where the digital rock model describes a physical pore structure and applying fluid phase behavior (e.g., pressure-volume-temperature of a multi-phase system including an oil-water solvent system) along with petrophysical flow properties (e.g., fluid flow in porous media) to the digital rock model in order to simulate phase behavior and production behavior. See FIG. 3;
Issued US Patent to Ratulowski et al. (US 11118428 B2) which is directed to a hydrocarbon production simulation model which incorporates equation of state data (e.g., fluid phase behavior according to pressure-temperature-volume characteristics) and provides production estimates according to fluid injection scenarios;
Issued US Patent to Vinegar et al. (US 11933932 B1) which teaches using nuclear magnetic resonance measurements to generate a formation permeability;
Published US Patent Application to Hager et al. (US 20110066380 A1) which is directed to a numerical simulation used to model fluid injection for hydrocarbon recovery operations;
Published US Patent Application to Pomerantz et al. (US 20120232859 A1) which is directed to a numerical simulation used to model fluid injection for hydrocarbon recovery operations including equations of state to determine fluid properties and behavior;
Published US Patent Application to Bang et al. (US 20120150519 A1) which is directed to a numerical simulation used to model and assess fluid injection for hydrocarbon recovery operations including solvent injection operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights