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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. The claim has been amended to remove the claim language that invoked 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) and corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejections, the claims have been amended to no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The subject matter of claim 1 provides specific improvements to the functioning of a system for a well development sequence for the field. For example, the claims include generating, based on the received field data, a production forecast for the one or more wells of the field and verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event. In particular, the claims include generating, based on the production forecast and the verified potential defensive refract candidates, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event" and "initiating at least one aspect of the well development sequence for the field." Thus, the disclosed system is not a "mental process", but instead generates and initiates a well development sequence based on the production forecast and the verified potential defensive refract candidates to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event. This concept is an improvement in oilfield sequencing and development that is generated and initiated based on field data received from one or more wells of the field. For at least these reasons, the features of claim 1 are meaningful features that add more than generic computer components to solve a problem. Rather, the features of the present pending independent claims, when taken as a combination, provide unconventional steps that confine the concept to a particular useful application. Therefore, the claim recites patent eligible subject matter.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “generating,” as drafted, is part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The purported improvement of improving the “well development sequence” of the field, as drafted, would be an improvement reflected in the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. This type of improvement does not improve the functioning of the additional elements of the claims for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology” Furthermore, the limitation of “initiating,” as drafted, provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for 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: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. The 35 USC 102 rejection in view of Perecharla has been withdrawn; however, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 103. The claims are rejected under a new grounds of rejection, which was necessitated by amendment. See the detailed rejection below.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Rather, Dumoit is silent on generating a well development sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event. For at least this reason, amended independent claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Perecharla in view of Ba and Dumoit. As dependent claim 5 depends from amended independent claim 1, dependent claim 14 depends from amended independent claim 10, and dependent claim 19 depends from amended independent claim 17 and Ba in view of Dumoit fails to remedy the deficiencies of Perecharla in view of Ba, it is respectfully submitted that claims 5, 14, and 19 are patentable over the cited combination of references.,” Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art combination of the record have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior art rejection for any teachings or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are rejected under a new grounds of rejection, which was necessitated by amendment. Examiner has introduced the Roussel reference to cure the deficiencies of the prior art combination of the record. See the detailed rejection below.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/30/2026 has been fully considered.
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 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more
Step 1: Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-13 and 15-16 are directed to one or more tangible non-transitory computer readable medium, and claims 17-18 and 20 are directed to a system. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 are related to generate a well development sequence for the field, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 1 recites limitations including “receiving, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field; generating, based on the received field data, a production forecast for the one or more wells of the field; verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event; and generating, based on the production forecast and the verified potential defensive refract candidates, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.” Claim 10 recites limitations including “receiving, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field; generating, based on the received field data, a production forecast for the one or more wells of the field; verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event; and generating, based on the production forecast and the verified potential defensive refract candidates, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.” Claim 17 recites limitations including “generate, based on the received field data, a production forecast for the one or more wells of the field; verify potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event; model, based on the production forecast for the one or more wells of the field, an economic performance of the field, the economic performance at least partially based on a location and lateral length of the one or more wells; and generate, based on the modeled economic performance and the verified potential defensive refract candidates, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of “processor,” is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “processor” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 18 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 9 and 20 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 1, 10, and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “receiving, at a processor and from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field.” Claim 10 recites “one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising” within the preamble of the claim. Claim 10 recites the additional element of “receiving, at a processor of the computing system and from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field.” Claim 17 is a system that recites “a processor; a communication port receiving, from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 further recites the additional element, similarly recited in claims 10 and 17, including “initiating at least one aspect of the well development sequence for the field.” These claims, as drafted, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for 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: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 18 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 9 recites the additional element of “further comprising: displaying, in a user interface, the generated well development sequence for the field.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 recites the additional element of “a display device in communication with the processor, the instructions causing the processor to display, on the display device, the generated well development sequence for the field.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 10, and 17 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “receiving, at a processor and from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field.” Claim 10 recites “one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising” within the preamble of the claim. Claim 10 recites the additional element of “receiving, at a processor of the computing system and from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field.” Claim 17 is a system that recites “a processor; a communication port receiving, from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) is not anything significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 further recites the additional element, similarly recited in claims 10 and 17, including “initiating at least one aspect of the well development sequence for the field.” These claims, as drafted, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for 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: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 18 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 recites the additional element of “further comprising: displaying, in a user interface, the generated well development sequence for the field.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 recites the additional element of “a display device in communication with the processor, the instructions causing the processor to display, on the display device, the generated well development sequence for the field.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for 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., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perecharla et al. (US 20250117864 A1) in view of Ba et al. (US 20220290550 A1) in view of Roussel et al. (US 20180149000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Perecharla teaches a method for optimizing production of a field (Fig. 5), the method comprising:
receiving, at a processor and from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field (Fig. 5 and [0068] teach receiving oilfield input, wherein the input classes include the input shown in Fig. 4, wherein Fig. 4 and [0065] teach the data to perform data analytics includes well attributes, production data, pressure data, and other reservoir data collected from available sources, wherein the platform can store the data; see also: [0005, 0063, 0066];
generating, based on the received field data, a production forecast for the one or more wells of the field (Fig. 5 and [0068] teach projecting production of the wells in the field, wherein wells that are projected may include drilled and completed wells, drilled but uncompleted wells, planned but not yet drilled wells, and unplanned wells, wherein various techniques can be used for projecting production for individual wells in an interconnected field of wells, wherein [0005] teaches projecting production for a plurality of wells in a field based on the oilfield data input; see also: [0069, 0071]);
verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event (Fig. 5 and [0069] teach the production projections can be aggregated and ranked in order to provide insight into wells that are worthwhile, those that are marginal, and those that are not worth proceeding, wherein wells that can be completed, worked-over, etc., in order to enhance production can be identified from such aggregation/ranking, as well as in [0084] teaches the decision outcomes can include identification of refract well candidates, targeting of underperforming wells for remedial actions, and prioritizing wells in drilling inventory; see also: [0070, 0082-0083]; Examiner’s Note: See the 35 USC 103 combination below for teachings pertaining to the unbolded claim language.);
generating, based on the production forecast and the verified potential defensive refract candidates, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event (Fig. 5 and [0070] teach determining completion operations to conduct for individual wells in the field using machine-learning based workflows, wherein the determinations take into account connectivity of proximal wells, forecasting results of completion operations, as well as determining whether to conduct one or more hydraulic fracturing operations, wherein [0071] teaches if/when these completion operations are conducted, as well as simulated, the projections at 504 may be impacted and adjusted through a return loop; see also: [0082-0083]); and
initiating at least one aspect of the well development sequence for the field ([0034] teaches the wellbore is drilled according to the drilling plan that is established prior to drilling, wherein the plan sets forth equipment, pressures, trajectories, and other parameters that define the drilling process for the wellsite, wherein the drilling operation may then be performed according to the drilling plan, wherein Fig. 5 and [0070-0071] teach determining completion operations for individual wells in the field, wherein the completion operations can be conducted including hydraulic fracturing completion operations; see also: [0036]).
However, Perecharla does not explicitly teach verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event; generating, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ba teaches verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event ([0238] teaches generating a working plan that enables aiming for multiple targets simultaneously, as well as in [0245] teaches generating plans that provide for multiple targets, wherein the plan can be generated that aims to provide for drilling operations that aim for multiple targets simultaneously, and wherein [0091] teaches operations can include reactivation of natural fractures; see also: [0298, 0384]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perecharla to incorporate the teachings of Ba to include verifying potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a plan generation system that can be quite extensible to consider various different properties for the purposes of ranking, which can be used for real-time execution (Perecharla, [0243]). By incorporating the teachings of Perecharla, one would have been able to generate a real-time ranking of the candidate trajectories based on constraint information and context (Perecharla, [0419]).
However, the combination of Perecharla and Ba does not explicitly teach generating, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Roussel teaches generating, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event ([0031-0032] teach inputting a fracture sequence into a reservoir model, wherein the fracture sequence utilizes multiple wells and fracturing stages, wherein the well fracture sequence can include zipper fracturing, wherein the fracture parameters and well parameters can be iteratively updated, wherein [0110] teaches proposing a multi-well sequencing workflow that enables fracture complexity generation, wherein the fracture plan design can employ a zipper fracture pattern in multi-well parallel horizonal completions, by performing fracturing in an alternating pattern, wherein Fig. 3 and [0122-0123] teach generating a fracture plan including a basic sequence including zipper-fracking the outside section and zipper-fracking the inside section, wherein the number of wells and well spacing can be designed and determined, wherein [0130] teaches adjusting the well spacing and/or number of wells in the fracture sequence so that the well spacing and number of wells depend on fracture length, wherein [0140-0141] teaches the plan may include either a nested or stagged zipper frack pattern, with leapfrogging sequencing, to establish stress for the frack sequence, wherein the sequence can include zipper-fracked alternatingly for a number of stages, which can then be zipper-fracked further, wherein [0036] teaches the reservoir can undergo different zipper fracturing, including nested zipper fracturing, alternating zipper fracturing, staggered zipper fracturing, or a combination thereof, wherein [0054] teaches zipper fracturing refers to sequentially fracturing at least two parallel wells either simultaneously or alternatingly, wherein the alternating fracturing means that fracturing occurs at stage 1 on well one, then the parallel stage on well two, then fracturing beings on stage 2 on well one, then parallel on well two, and so forth, wherein [0058] teaches a leapfrog refers to execution of a nested zipper fracturing sequence includes repeating the nested zipper fracturing sequence until the parallel horizontal wells are stimulated across the entire length; see also: [0056-0057, 0108-0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Perecharla and Ba to incorporate the teachings of Roussel to include generating, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a multi-well sequencing workflow, thus being able to increase fracture complexity to improve hydrocarbon recovery without the expense or time needed to increasing the number of perforation clusters (Roussel, [0152]). By incorporating the teachings of Roussel, one would have been able to improve the performance of stimulation treatments in horizontal wells by evaluating the sequence of fracturing including consecutive, alternative, or simultaneous fracturing (Roussel, [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Perecharla teaches one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system (Fig. 17 and [0097-0100] teach one or more storage media that stores machine readable instructions that can be executed by a processor; see also: [0005]), the computer process comprising. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above.
Perecharla further teaches wherein the production forecast is generated through a type- curve workflow of the field data ([0092] teaches type curves for production per generation can tell if a particular generation of wells for a given spacing performs good or poorly, wherein these type curves can be extrapolated with decline curve analysis to estimate long term production forecasts for any generation of planned well, as well as in [0079] teaches fitting the predicted time series from neural networks in traditional decline curve type model that diminishes the effect of the outliers in the systems and improves prediction behavior; see also: [0003, 0048, 0076]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above.
Perecharla further teaches further comprising: modeling, based on the production forecast for the one or more wells of the field, an economic performance of the field ([0090] teaches the forecasted production behavior and the obtained forecasted production rate is used to conduct economic analysis of the well, wherein the economic analysis enables long-term cashflow for existing and not yet drilled wells and time to break even, as well as in Fig. 16 and [0092] teach analyzing the impact on existing wells when new wells are completed, as well as refining the ML workflow to provide an ML based production forecast and economic forecasts; see also: [0049, 0086]),
the economic performance at least partially based on a location and lateral length of the one or more wells ([0092] teaches the for potential locations of a well, completions can be refined using the completion refinement ML workflow which can provide the ML based production forecast and economic forecasts, wherein [0090] teaches the obtained completion design and location are used in the DCA ML to forecast production behavior and the obtained forecasted production rate is used to conduct economic analysis of the well, wherein the economic analysis enables long-term cashflow for existing and not yet drilled wells and time to break even, as well as in [0086] teaches the completion refinement process can include identifying locations in the asset and generate completion parameters to be used, wherein economic calculations can be performed to identify how long it will take for these wells to turn profitable; see also: [0003-0004, 0082-0084]).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 18, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 17 above.
Perecharla further teaches wherein verifying the potential defensive refract candidates is based on one of a current production (Fig. 5 and [0069] teach the production projections can be aggregated and ranked in order to provide insight into wells that are worthwhile, those that are marginal, and those that are not worth proceeding, wherein wells that can be completed, worked-over, etc., in order to enhance production can be identified from such aggregation/ranking, as well as in [0084] teaches the decision outcomes can include identification of refract well candidates, targeting of underperforming wells for remedial actions, and prioritizing wells in drilling inventory, wherein [0083] teaches the production parameters and the completion index trends may be used to rank the existing wells in the asset and identify potential areas further to exploit, wherein wells in the drilling inventory can be compared with the ranked wells to further prioritize based on their possible potential; see also: Fig. 13, [0070, 0082]), a well design (Fig. 5 and [0069] teach the production projections can be aggregated and ranked in order to provide insight into wells that are worthwhile, those that are marginal, and those that are not worth proceeding, wherein wells that can be completed, worked-over, etc., in order to enhance production can be identified from such aggregation/ranking, as well as in [0084] teaches the decision outcomes can include identification of refract well candidates, targeting of underperforming wells for remedial actions, and prioritizing wells in drilling inventory, wherein [0083] teaches the production parameters and the completion index trends may be used to rank the existing wells in the asset and identify potential areas further to exploit, wherein wells in the drilling inventory can be compared with the ranked wells to further prioritize based on their possible potential, wherein [0085] teaches generating completion decisions through the refinement workflow that considers planned wells as well as drilled but uncompleted wells to start production, wherein the completion design is based on the hybrid machine learning model; see also: Fig. 13, [0070, 0082]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above.
Perecharla further teaches wherein the field data comprises at least one of geology data, drilled or undrilled inventory data, or economic data (Fig. 5 and [0068] teach receiving oilfield input, wherein the input classes include the input shown in Fig. 4, wherein Fig. 4 and [0065] teach the data to perform data analytics includes well attributes, production data, pressure data, and other reservoir data collected from available sources, wherein the platform can store the data, wherein [0079] teaches the inputs include inputs related to geological and completion parameters, wherein [0082-0083] teach forecasting aggregation and well ranking can be performed for a given drilling inventory, wherein [0086] teaches the process can be performed for individual wells and drilled but uncompleted wells, wherein [0049] teaches the collected data includes economic information that can be used to generate models; see also: [0005, 0063, 0066]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. However, Perecharla fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating the well development sequence for the field is further based on ranking of one or more key performance indicators of the one or more wells of the field.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ba further teaches wherein generating the well development sequence for the field is further based on ranking of one or more key performance indicators of the one or more wells of the field (Fig. 1 and [0071] teach assessing one or more fractures at a wellsite, wherein [0151-0152] teach generating a working plan involving generating a range of trajectory candidates that satisfy a number of different conditions and evaluate the candidates based on the trajectory context and rank, wherein the trajectories may be ranked using candidate properties including key performance indicators; see also: [0004, 0091, 0243]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel to incorporate the further teachings of Ba to include wherein generating the well development sequence for the field is further based on ranking of one or more key performance indicators of the one or more wells of the field. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a plan generation system that can be quite extensible to consider various different properties for the purposes of ranking, which can be used for real-time execution Ba, [0243]). By incorporating the teachings of Perecharla, one would have been able to generate a real-time ranking of the candidate trajectories based on constraint information and context (Ba, [0419]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above.
Perecharla further anticipates further comprising: displaying, in a user interface, the generated well development sequence for the field (Fig. 5 and [0070] teach determining completion operations to conduct for individual wells in the field using machine-learning based workflows, wherein the determinations take into account connectivity of proximal wells, forecasting results of completion operations, as well as determining whether to conduct one or more hydraulic fracturing operations, wherein [0071] teaches if/when these completion operations are conducted, as well as simulated, the projections at 504 may be impacted and adjusted through a return loop, wherein Fig. 12 and [0081-0083] teach generating a dashboard for monitoring well performance and identifying potential areas further to exploit, wherein the dashboard can display operational decisions including the asset forecast and the well ranking decision dashboard, wherein [0084-0085] teaches the operational insights include operational insights for completion decisions through the completion refinement workflow, as well as in [0007] teaches determining one or more completion operations to conduct for the one or more identified wells and displaying the identified wells, analytics, and recommendations using a display dashboard; see also: [0005, 0080]).
Regarding claim 17, Perecharla teaches a system optimizing production of a field (Fig. 17), the system comprising: a processor (Fig. 17 and [0097-0098] teach a computing system comprising a processor; see also: [0099]); a communication port receiving, from a plurality of databases, field data corresponding to one or more wells of the field (Fig. 17 and [0098] teach a computing system comprising a processor and a storage media, wherein the processor is connected to a network interface that allows the computer system to communicate over a data network with additional computing systems, wherein Fig. 5 and [0068] teach receiving oilfield input, wherein the input classes include the input shown in Fig. 4, wherein Fig. 4 and [0065] teach the data to perform data analytics includes well attributes, production data, pressure data, and other reservoir data collected from available sources, wherein the platform can store the data; see also: [0005, 0063, 0066, 0075]); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Fig. 17 and [0097-0100] teach one or more storage media that stores machine readable instructions that can be executed by a processor; see also: [0005]):
generate, based on the received field data, a production forecast for the one or more wells of the field (Fig. 5 and [0068] teach projecting production of the wells in the field, wherein wells that are projected may include drilled and completed wells, drilled but uncompleted wells, planned but not yet drilled wells, and unplanned wells, wherein various techniques can be used for projecting production for individual wells in an interconnected field of wells, wherein [0005] teaches projecting production for a plurality of wells in a field based on the oilfield data input; see also: [0069, 0071]);
verify potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event (Fig. 5 and [0069] teach the production projections can be aggregated and ranked in order to provide insight into wells that are worthwhile, those that are marginal, and those that are not worth proceeding, wherein wells that can be completed, worked-over, etc., in order to enhance production can be identified from such aggregation/ranking, as well as in [0084] teaches the decision outcomes can include identification of refract well candidates, targeting of underperforming wells for remedial actions, and prioritizing wells in drilling inventory; see also: [0070, 0082-0083]);
model, based on the production forecast for the one or more wells of the field, an economic performance of the field ([0090] teaches the forecasted production behavior and the obtained forecasted production rate is used to conduct economic analysis of the well, wherein the economic analysis enables long-term cashflow for existing and not yet drilled wells and time to break even, as well as in Fig. 16 and [0092] teach analyzing the impact on existing wells when new wells are completed, as well as refining the ML workflow to provide an ML based production forecast and economic forecasts; see also: [0049, 0086]),
the economic performance at least partially based on a location and lateral length of the one or more wells ([0092] teaches the for potential locations of a well, completions can be refined using the completion refinement ML workflow which can provide the ML based production forecast and economic forecasts, wherein [0090] teaches the obtained completion design and location are used in the DCA ML to forecast production behavior and the obtained forecasted production rate is used to conduct economic analysis of the well, wherein the economic analysis enables long-term cashflow for existing and not yet drilled wells and time to break even, as well as in [0086] teaches the completion refinement process can include identifying locations in the asset and generate completion parameters to be used, wherein economic calculations can be performed to identify how long it will take for these wells to turn profitable; see also: [0003-0004, 0082-0084]);
and generate, based on the modeled economic performance and the verified potential defensive refract candidates, a well development sequence for the field (Fig. 5 and [0070] teach determining completion operations to conduct for individual wells in the field using machine-learning based workflows, wherein the determinations take into account connectivity of proximal wells, forecasting results of completion operations, as well as determining whether to conduct one or more hydraulic fracturing operations, wherein [0071] teaches if/when these completion operations are conducted, as well as simulated, the projections at 504 may be impacted and adjusted through a return loop; see also: [0082-0083]).
and initiating at least one aspect of the well development sequence for the field ([0034] teaches the wellbore is drilled according to the drilling plan that is established prior to drilling, wherein the plan sets forth equipment, pressures, trajectories, and other parameters that define the drilling process for the wellsite, wherein the drilling operation may then be performed according to the drilling plan, wherein Fig. 5 and [0070-0071] teach determining completion operations for individual wells in the field, wherein the completion operations can be conducted including hydraulic fracturing completion operations; see also: [0036]).
However, Perecharla does not explicitly teach verify potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event; generate, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ba teaches verify potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event ([0238] teaches generating a working plan that enables aiming for multiple targets simultaneously, as well as in [0245] teaches generating plans that provide for multiple targets, wherein the plan can be generated that aims to provide for drilling operations that aim for multiple targets simultaneously, and wherein [0091] teaches operations can include reactivation of natural fractures; see also: [0298, 0384]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perecharla to incorporate the teachings of Ba to include verify potential defensive refract candidates of the one or more wells of the field to identify a simultaneous operations event. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a plan generation system that can be quite extensible to consider various different properties for the purposes of ranking, which can be used for real-time execution (Ba, [0243]). By incorporating the teachings of Perecharla, one would have been able to generate a real-time ranking of the candidate trajectories based on constraint information and context (Ba, [0419]).
However, the combination of Perecharla and Ba does not explicitly teach generate, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Roussel teaches generate, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event ([0031-0032] teach inputting a fracture sequence into a reservoir model, wherein the fracture sequence utilizes multiple wells and fracturing stages, wherein the well fracture sequence can include zipper fracturing, wherein the fracture parameters and well parameters can be iteratively updated, wherein [0110] teaches proposing a multi-well sequencing workflow that enables fracture complexity generation, wherein the fracture plan design can employ a zipper fracture pattern in multi-well parallel horizonal completions, by performing fracturing in an alternating pattern, wherein Fig. 3 and [0122-0123] teach generating a fracture plan including a basic sequence including zipper-fracking the outside section and zipper-fracking the inside section, wherein the number of wells and well spacing can be designed and determined, wherein [0130] teaches adjusting the well spacing and/or number of wells in the fracture sequence so that the well spacing and number of wells depend on fracture length, wherein [0140-0141] teaches the plan may include either a nested or stagged zipper frack pattern, with leapfrogging sequencing, to establish stress for the frack sequence, wherein the sequence can include zipper-fracked alternatingly for a number of stages, which can then be zipper-fracked further, wherein [0036] teaches the reservoir can undergo different zipper fracturing, including nested zipper fracturing, alternating zipper fracturing, staggered zipper fracturing, or a combination thereof, wherein [0054] teaches zipper fracturing refers to sequentially fracturing at least two parallel wells either simultaneously or alternatingly, wherein the alternating fracturing means that fracturing occurs at stage 1 on well one, then the parallel stage on well two, then fracturing beings on stage 2 on well one, then parallel on well two, and so forth, wherein [0058] teaches a leapfrog refers to execution of a nested zipper fracturing sequence includes repeating the nested zipper fracturing sequence until the parallel horizontal wells are stimulated across the entire length; see also: [0056-0057, 0108-0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Perecharla and Ba to incorporate the teachings of Roussel to include generate, a well development sequence for the field to remove the potential defensive refract candidate from the sequence based on the identified simultaneous operations event. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a multi-well sequencing workflow, thus being able to increase fracture complexity to improve hydrocarbon recovery without the expense or time needed to increasing the number of perforation clusters (Roussel, [0152]). By incorporating the teachings of Roussel, one would have been able to improve the performance of stimulation treatments in horizontal wells by evaluating the sequence of fracturing including consecutive, alternative, or simultaneous fracturing (Roussel, [0109]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perecharla et al. (US 20250117864 A1) in view of Ba et al. (US 20220290550 A1) in view of Roussel et al. (US 20180149000 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 20220372860 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. However, Perecharla fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating the well development sequence for the field is further based on data associated with one or more pilot wells.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Allen teaches wherein generating the well development sequence for the field is further based on data associated with one or more pilot wells ([0147] teaches the workflow can commence to an evaluation stage that takes into consideration a variety of different inputs including pilot well data, wherein [0148] teaches this data can be modeled and utilized in order to determine the well trajectory and plans, wherein [0157] teaches well planning can determine a path of well, or trajectory, that can extend a reservoir to produce hydrocarbons, and wherein [0079] teaches planning for full-field development; see also: [0045, 0055, 0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Perecharla, Ba, and Roussel to incorporate the teachings of Allen to include wherein generating the well development sequence for the field is further based on data associated with one or more pilot wells. One would have been motivated to do so in order to establish a safe and efficient drilling plan based real-life drilling parameters (Allen, [0153]). By incorporating the teachings of Allen, one would have been able to utilize an automated planning workflow that includes a plurality of inputs including pilot well data (Allen, [0146-0147]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fu (US 20210301622 A1) discloses performing sequential or simultaneous fluid injection, as well as refracturing
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625