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 .
Responsive to communications on 06/16/2026
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 amended
Claims 2-3 and 7 canceled
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-9 pending
Final Action
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Response to Arguments
Response to Drawings
Drawings were previously objected to by not showing every feature of the present invention specified in the claims. The drawings were amended to include figure 4 and 5 flowcharts which outline the claimed invention. The specification has been updated to disclose the figures. The previous objection is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Objections
The claims 1—9 were previously objected to.
The equations and description of the equations were objected to in the claims for not being clearly legible.
Claims 1 and 2 were objected for clarity.
In response to the objections, the applicant has submitted amendments in word format which ensure clarity of the claims. Applicant has amended the claims to clarify the definition of variables, fracture propagation operation, and grid description. Applicant has reformatted equations to be more readable, and Claim language has been revised to clarify meanings.
Examiner confirms claim set received on 06/16/2026 contains a higher quality scan, and the equations are readable. Examiner confirms that the different of U and e has been clarified in claim 1, fracture units has been clarified to “added” which provides clarity of what was previously meant by increased, and the “grid number” concept in previous claim 2 has been clarified in amended claim 1. Previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Response to 35 USC § 112 (b) rejections
Claims 1-9 were previously objected to for 112(b) issues present in the claim. Applicant amended claims to overcome previous 112(b) rejection. Please see claim 112(b) rejections below for the maintained rejection.
Response to 35 USC § 101 rejection
Claims 1-9 were previously rejected for reciting an abstract idea which has not been integrated into practical application or providing significantly more. Examiner maintains 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea:
Issue: Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a specific technical workflow in the field of reservoir engineering, which requires establishing a structured grid based on the reservoir geological model, where each grid comprises a matrix and microfracture system constituting a dual seepage model. As well as adding initial fractures to the grid. Applicants argue the above limitations do not merely recite an abstract grid of mental organization of information but instead define a structured reservoir simulation grid representing the physical system.
Rule: The MPEP 2106.04 (a)(1) states “When evaluating a claim to determine whether it recites an abstract idea, examiners should keep in mind that while "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas", not all claims recite an abstract idea. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980-81 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 US 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Step 2A Prong One analysis articulated in MPEP § 2106.04 accounts for this cautionary principle by requiring a claim to recite (i.e., set forth or describe) an abstract idea in Prong One before proceeding to the Prong Two inquiry about whether the claim is directed to that idea, thereby separating claims reciting abstract ideas from those that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea. Some claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea, although it may be apparent that at some level they are based on or involve an abstract idea. Because these claims do not recite an abstract idea (or other judicial exception), they are eligible at Step 2A Prong One (Pathway B)
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) defines abstract idea groupings with examples of “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010)”
The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment,”)
Analysis: In order for a claim pass step 2A prong 1 of the 101 flowcharts, the claim must recite an abstract idea. As outlined in the previous non-final, the claim recites multiple abstract ideas, for example “Calculate the stress intensity factor at the eth fracture tip at t0 based on the boundary element displacement discontinuity method” is a recitation of the mathematic calculation’s abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 does recite an abstract idea. Regarding if the claim is directed towards an abstract idea, this is a consideration with the additional elements of the claim (ie: those elements not abstract) . The claim being directed to “define a structured reservoir simulation grid representing the physical system. “ as understood by the examiner is relating the abstract ideas of, “defining a grid, performing a mathematic calculation and determining a mathematic value (sim. Reservoir flow) to a technological field of process. As outlined above, relating an abstract idea by stating that it models reservoir flow does not apply the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains previous 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that the step of “calculating a stress intensity factor at a fracture tip based on a boundary element displacement discontinuity method” is not claimed in isolation and its used as part of a specific hydraulic fracture propagation simulation that is coupled with reservoir flow.
Rule: The MPEP 2106.05 (e) states “The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole. The considerations described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) are meaningful limitations when they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This broad label signals that there can be other considerations besides those described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) that when added to a judicial exception amount to meaningful limitations that can transform a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184, 187, 209 USPQ at 7, 8. In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
Analysis: As understood by the examiner, this argument states that the judicial exception does not recite an abstract idea because the judicial exception is not claimed in isolation is instead used as part of a specific hydraulic fracture propagation simulation that is coupled with reservoir flow. As outlined in the MPEP, in order to the judicial exception to apply a meaningful limitation, it must be pertained to “additional elements” in the claim rather than judicial exceptions. The above argument does not point to additional elements in the workflow which could apply the exception. For example, the Arrhenius equation case (Dioman v Diehr) as cited applies additional meaningful exceptions because it involved physical real steps of opening a mold, measuring its temperature, opening the press at the calculated time. Therefore, the steps used as part of a specific hydraulic fracture propagation simulation that is coupled with reservoir flow does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception because it recites the judicial exception itself rather than additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that the comparison of stress intensity factors with fracture toughness is not a simple mental judgment, but instead fracture mechanics-based simulation process that updates fracture unit data for subsequent reservoir flow simulation
Rule: The MPEP 2106.04(iii) states “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 an example of a claim that recites a mental process to include “• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); “
Analysis: Applicant argues the comparison step of stress intensity fractures with fracture toughness is not a mental judgment but is instead a fracture mechanics-based simulation process. As understood by the examiner, a comparison under broadest reasonable interpretation is a step of evaluating the similarities and differences between two things. In the context of this simulation, this is a comparison of two numeric values. See claim 1: “wherein the stress intensity factor KLe.o at the eth fracture tip to is compared with a fracture toughness KIc of a reservoir rock, the fracture does not propagate when Ke.to < KIc, and the fracture propagates when KIe.t0 > Kic:” This is a comparison to see which one of two values is greater, which is a mental evaluation which can be performed in the mind of an individual ordinarily skilled in the art. Furthermore, the cited claim limitation has steps of, “adding a fracture unit … assigning fluid pressure … convert to initial conditions.” As understood by the examiner, this is a process of analyzing information from data and outputting the information, which is considered to be a mental process.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that the final simulated reservoir volume is not an abstract numeric result but instead determined through simulated physical changes in the reservoir during hydraulic fracturing.
Rule: The MPEP 2106.04(iii) states “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 an example of a claim that recites a mental process to include “• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); “
Analysis: As stated above, the mental process grouping outlines examples of mental processes to include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. The claim recites repeatedly perform fracture propagation and calculations. As understood by the examiner, these are mathematical calculations which are occurring. The applicant states that the values are determined through simulated physical changes in the reservoir during hydraulic fracturing. However, these are not actual physical changes, these are simulated changes, which are determined based on mathematics and mental processes. This claim collects information pertaining to the reservoir, performs analyzing steps which include the calculations above, and then displays the results.
Conclusion: The examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that the examiner improperly characterizes the steps of claim 1 such as the steps of “calculating”, … determining”, or … “establishing a grid” at a high level of generality without considering the claims as a whole.
Rule: The MPEP 2106.05 (e) states “The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole. The considerations described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) are meaningful limitations when they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This broad label signals that there can be other considerations besides those described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) that when added to a judicial exception amount to meaningful limitations that can transform a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Analysis: Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that the claims are interpreted improperly without considering the claim as a whole. In order for claim elements to provide meaningful limitations beyond the judicial exception, they must be additional elements outside the judicial exception. Furthermore, when viewed as a whole, the claims pertain to a software simulation method. When viewed a as a whole, the examiner interprets the claim as involving computer and mathematic processes, which do not pertain to specific hardware and have generic implementation, to calculate for a value (reservoir volume).
Conclusion: Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and recites specific technical improvement to the field in reservoir numerical simulation and stimulated reservoir volume determination which is supported in the specifications.
Rule: The MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Analysis: The improvement in the claim is an improved method for determining reservoir volume of horizontal wells. This is an improvement in the abstract idea itself, rather than an improvement in technology. In order for the claim to represent an improvement in technology, the claim should apply the judicial exception into an additional element. (ie: the determination of horizontal well volume is used in some process in a real reservoir).
Conclusion: Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that even if claim 1 is considered to recite an abstract idea, that the claim recites significantly more.
Issue: Applicant argues that the claim elements provide a specific technological improvement for coupling hydraulic-fracture propagation with reservoir flow. Where the ordered combination of steps includes recited elements of the claims. Applicant argues that the ordered combination is not generic instruction to apply mathematics to the field of hydraulic fracturing, but instead a specific coupling architecture in which fracture unit data generated by fracture propagation simulation is used in reservoir-flow numerical simulation, subsequent time step calculation, and final SRV determination.
Rule: The MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Analysis: The claims are directed to determining a simulated reservoir volume of horizontal wells based on a multitude of factors. As understood by the examiner, this is the relevant judicial exception under consideration. The claim does not use this value to improve technology, rather, this is an improved method for generating a relevant mathematical value. To clarify, the claim does not apply judicial exception into a use in the real-world which would provide a specific improvement to a technology (ie: after determining the reservoir volume, do something with that information to improve development of shale gas resources), but instead is directed to determine a simulated reservoir volume. This is an improvement of the abstract idea itself. As stated by the MPEP, the improvement of the abstract idea itself does not qualify as an improvement to the judicial exception.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that examiner has not established that the ordered combination is well understood routine or conventional. Furthermore, applicant argues that examiner has also not established that the recited claim elements merely amounts to routine data processing. Where applicant argues that the amended claims recite a specific technical improvement to the problem identified in the specification.
Rule: MPEP 2106.05 states “The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept … An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
MPEP 2106.07(a) states “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.”
The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “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”
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “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.”
Analysis: It is not a requirement under 101 analyses that the elements in the claim to be found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. Nor is it required for the examiner to outline that the data elements recited are mere data processing. Rather, in step 2B, the consideration is determining whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Previously in the non-final, the additional elements in claim 1 were determining to be “merely indicating a field of use” and “use of a computer or other machinery for its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks.” which both state “does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”. Therefore, under these considerations it is not required that the claim elements be well understood, routine, or conventional. Furthermore, this consideration applies to the additional elements in the claim, not to the claim limitations that were considered part of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims recited are not required to be well understood, routine or conventional, or mere data gathering elements, to be rejected under 101 analysis since the recited claim limitations are abstract elements, “merely indicating a field of use” and “use of a computer or other machinery for its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks.”
Conclusion: Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Issue: Applicant argues that if claim 1 should be made allowable that the dependent claims should be made allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of claim 1 and thus maintains it for the dependent claims.
Response to 35 USC § 103 rejection
Claims 1-2 and 9 were rejected as being unpatentable over Weng_2008, Mustapha_2019 and Yujin_2016.
Claim 7 was rejected as being unpatentable over Weng_2008, Mustapha_2019, Yujin_2016, and Elsevier_2011
Claims 3-6, and 8 were found to contain potentially allowable subject matter in reference to the prior art.
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to incorporate previous claims 2 and 3. Examiner confirms that claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of the previous claims, and the previous 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
End Response to Arguments
Drawings
Responsive to drawings received on 06/16/2026. Drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Responsive to specifications received on 06/16/2026. Specification has been amended to include figures 3 and 4. Specifications are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 step 2. “based on an boundary element displacement discontinuity method” should be written as “based on a boundary element displacement discontinuity method”
Claim 5: “al is a angle between a x-axis of the local x- y coordinate system” should be “al is an angle between a x-axis of the local x- y coordinate system”
Claim 8:” ; TFis a initiation time of hydraulic fracture unit” should be “; TFis an initiation time of hydraulic fracture unit”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 step 1 line 1 recites the limitation "the target well." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Afterwards in line two it recites “a target well.” These two terms should be switched.
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, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites “A reservoir numerical simulation method for determining a stimulated reservoir volume of horizontal wells by coupling hydraulic-fracture propagation with reservoir flow during a fracturing operation, comprising following steps: which is a process.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites: establish a reservoir grid of a target well based on the reservoir geological model
When stated generally, the process of “establishing a grid” encompasses a mental model of defining a mathematic or conceptual grid onto a projection of a well.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. Secondly, “MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” and also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”
The examiner notes that this grid is not a physical tangible grid, but rather a mathematic one that is superimposed on top of a model. This process of establishing a grid is a mental process performed by mathematicians, this grid can be performed mentally or can be written down on a piece of pen and paper. For example, an x-y coordinate grid can be established on a piece of paper by drawing perpendicular lines. This grid being established “based on a reservoir geological model” means that a user defines the grid based on some information. This is a user observing the information and passing a judgement on how the grid should be established, this is the mental process of performing observations and judgement.
Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
as a structured grid with a grid comprising ni cells in x-direction and n cells in y-direction of an x-y coordinate system, wherein xj. and yi.; represent a length and a width of each grid respectively and subscripts i andj represent the position of each grid in the reservoir
As mentioned previously, the reservoir grid stated generally encompasses a mental model of defining a mathematic or conceptual grid onto a projection of a well.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A” and also the “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
The recitation of a ni x nj coordinate system, where xij represents length etc, is a mathematic recitation which outlines the relationship between variables and numbers in the established mathematic grid. Furthermore,, the additions to the grid does not take the establishment of the grid outside the realm of a mental process. A grid “of ni x nj in x-y coordinate system,” is a flat square grid. A flat square grid can be reasonably created by one ordinarily skilled in the art.
Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
,; each grid comprising a matrix system and a micro-fracture system constituting a dual medium model
Based on the examiners understanding. The matrix system, and micro-fracture system, refer to the obtained geological model. The geological model contains information about the rock matrix as well as the microfractures, which are separated by the grid.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “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.”
As stated previously, the obtaining of the geological model is the use of a computer for its ordinary task of receiving data. Therefore this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception of establishing a mathematic grid into a practical application or provide significantly more to the judicial exception.
well, assign an original formation pressure and an original formation water saturation to the matrix system and the micro-fracture system of each grid,
The initial pore pressure, and water saturation values are values used in the equations later on in the claim. This claim limitation initializes these values.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A”
This claim limitation assigns original values to variables. For example. Initial pore pressure (P) is the original formation pressure, (P = original FP). This claim defined mathematic relationships that exist for the aforementioned received matrix and micro-fracture systems.
Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
add the initial fracture of each cluster to the reservoir grid, making initial fractures divided into multiple fracture units by the reservoir grid,
When stated generally, the process of adding the initial fracture of each cluster to the reservoir grid, where the initial fractures are divided into multiple fracture units by the reservoir grid; is the process of populating the mathematic/conceptual/drawn grid with fractures/lines that cut across the grid.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. Secondly, “MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” and also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”
This process of “adding” the initial fractures, is a conceptual addition. Physical fractures are not being added into a physical system, rather, this is a conceptual addition where the established grid is now populated by conceptual initial fractures. This can be performed by a user passing judgement on where the clusters are located on the grid, and adding fractures to each cluster. This can be performed with a pen and paper by a person ordinarily skilled in the art, where the user draws fractures across the grid
Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
wherein the initial fracture units are added to grids corresponding to a horizontal-well fracturing position, a direction of the initial fracture unit of each cluster is designated as a y-axis direction, and a length of the initial fracture unit of each cluster is a length of N grids, where N ? 3;
As stated previously, the addition of fracture units to each cluster was found to be an abstract idea of populating the mathematic/conceptual/drawn grid with fractures/lines that cut across the grid.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A” The “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
As stated previously, the addition of initial fractures to the reservoir grid is a mental process which can be performed with a pen and paper. This is a conceptual addition of fractures onto a mathematic grid, not a physical action being performed. The “direction of initial fracture unit of each cluster is designated as y-axis direction. And the length of initial fracture unit of each cluster is the length of N grids (N >= 3).” Is a recitation of how the addition is being performed. One ordinarily skilled in the art could understand how to add fractures to a certain length or direction based on various factors. Furthermore, this is a recitation of math which defines the relationship between the fractures and the mathematic grid.
Therefore, this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
wherein a hydraulic fracture in the reservoir grid has a plurality of hydraulic fracture tips, wherein a total number of the plurality of hydraulic fracture tips is U, and the number of fracture tips is each fracture tip is indexed by e, where e=1, 2 ..., U-1 and U; if e is an odd number, it represents an upper tip of the hydraulic fracture, and if e is an even number, it represents a lower tip of the hydraulic fracture;
wherein a total number of fracture units is nL, and each fracture unit is indexed by L whereL=1, 2... nL-1 and nL;
wherein a length of an Lt fracture unit is L, a fluid pressure in the Lt fracture unit is PFL, an initiation time of the Lth fracture unit is TFL, and an initiation time of the initial fracture of each cluster is to;
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A”
Furthermore, the “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
This claim limitation outlines the relationship between variables. For instance, “The total number of hydraulic fracture tips in the reservoir grid is defined us U,” this is a statement which defines a variable. “, then e= I, 2 ... , U-1 and U; if e is an odd number, it represents the upper tip of the fracture, and if e is an even number, it represents the lower tip of the fracture” This is a statement which outlines the relationship between the variable e and whether or not the fracture is an upper or lower tip.
Because this limitations in this claim pertain to outlining mathematic relationships, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2: Calculate a stress intensity factor at an eth fracture tip at to based on an boundary element displacement discontinuity method, wherein the boundary element displacement discontinuity method and an embedded discrete fracture model both discretize hydraulic fractures into individual fracture units, thereby coupling fracture propagation with reservoir fluid flow through the fracture units;
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This claim limitation recites a mathematic calculation. The process to “Calculate the stress intensity factor at the eth fracture tip at t0 based on the boundary element displacement discontinuity method” is the process of using a mathematic method to calculate a value. This is a recitation of a mathematic calculation.
The further recitation of “wherein the boundary element displacement discontinuity method and an embedded discrete fracture model both discretize hydraulic fractures into individual fracture units, thereby coupling fracture propagation with reservoir fluid flow through the fracture units;” defines what the mathematic function solves for, which is still a further recitation of math.
Because this limitations in this claim pertain to performing a mathematic calculation, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 3: Determine whether the fracture propagates at the eh fracture tip at to according to the stress intensity factor at the eth fracture tip at to,
As outlined above, when defined broadly, the “stress intensity factor at the eth fracture tip at t0:” is a numeric value calculated in step 2.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. “
This limitation is the determination if a fracture propagates at a given tip, based on a numeric value calculated for that tip. This is an observation of said value, and passing an evaluation based on said value if the fracture will propagate. For example, one ordinarily skilled in the art may pass an evaluation that a stress intensity factor of 1000 Mpa sqrt (m) will cause a particular fracture to propagate.
Therefore this limitation pertains to a mental process.
wherein the stress intensity factor KLe.o at the eth fracture tip to is compared with a fracture toughness KIc of a reservoir rock, the fracture does not propagate when Ke.to < KIc, and the fracture propagates when KIe.t0 > Kic:
As states previously in step 3, “judge whether the fracture propagates at the eth fracture tip at t0”; was found to be the mental process of an evaluation if a fracture propagates based on a numeric value. This limitation expands on how this mental evaluation is performed.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. “
One ordinarily skilled in the art is able to evaluate whether or not a fracture will propagate based on values. A person ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably observe two numbers and evaluate which is greater. The user can then determine based on that information if the fracture propagates.
Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
If the fracture does not propagate at the eth fracture tip, repeat Steps 2 and 3, calculate a stress intensity factor at an e+1 fracture tip at to, and judge whether the fracture propagates at the e+lth fracture tip at to;
As stated above in step 3, the process of determining “if the fracture does [or does] not propagate at the eth fracture tip” was determined to be a mental process of an evaluation.
As stated above, the process of performing “Steps 2 and 3” was found to be the performance of a mathematic calculation as well as a mental process respectively.
As stated in step 2, “calculate the stress intensity factor at the e+ 1th fracture tip at t0,” is the abstract idea of performing a mathematic calculation, except this time it is performed at the e+1th tip.
As stated in step 3 “judge whether the fracture propagates at the e+ 1th fracture tip at t0;” is the same mental process of an evaluation if a fracture propagates based on a numeric value.
The “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
Therefore, as this limitation recites both mathematic calculations as well as mental processes as already outlined previously, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
If the fracture propagates at the et fracture tip, a fracture unit is added to the fracture at the eth fracture tip in a direction of the eth fracture tip, and the total number of fracture units is nL=nL+1; a fluid pressure of the added fracture unit is equal to that of an adjacent fracture unit, and an initiation time of the added fracture unit is designated as TF,nL+1=tO, thereby updating fracture-unit data representing fracture propagation in the reservoir grid
As stated above in step 3, the process of determining “if the fracture does [or does] not propagate at the eth fracture tip” was determined to be a mental process of an evaluation.
As stated above, the process of adding fractures is a mental process of an evaluation and a conceptual addition performed on a pen and paper by one ordinarily skilled in the art.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A” Furthermore, “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
The process of increasing a fracture tip by a fracture unit, when stated generally, is the process of modifying the conceptual fracture tips in the grid/model by making them larger. This can be done by a person ordinarily skilled in the art using either a pen and paper when the represented conceptually, or through a mathematic formula when done as a result of the calculation.
Furthermore, the limitations of “, and the total number of fracture units is nt=n1.+ 1; the fluid pressure of the added fracture unit is the same as that of the adjacent fracture unit, and the initiation time of the added fracture unit is designated as Tr,nu-1=t0; “ define mathematic relationships between variables in the equations. Furthermore, the updating of fracture unit data is updating mathematic/numeric data in a simulation which is a further recitation of the mathematic concept.
Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
; repeat Steps 2 and 3, calculate the stress intensity factor at the e+lth fracture tip at to based on data after adding the fracture unit, and judge whether the fracture propagates at the e+lth fracture tip at to
As stated above, the process of performing “Steps 2 and 3” was found to be the performance of a mathematic calculation as well as a mental process respectively.
As stated in step 2, “calculate the stress intensity factor at the eth+1 fracture tip at t0 based on the data after adding the fracture unit” ,is the abstract idea of performing a mathematic calculation based on some information, except this time it is performed at the e+1th tip based on the newly added variables.
As stated in step 3 “and judge ,whether the fracture propagates at the eth+1 fracture tip at t0;
is the same mental process of an evaluation if a fracture propagates based on a numeric value.
The “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
Therefore, as this limitation recites both mathematic calculations as well as mental processes as already outlined previously, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
After a judgment of fracture propagation at all fracture tips, [[the]]a total number of fracture units nL,to after fracture propagation at to can be obtained, and the number of fracture unit is L=1,2, ..., nL,tO-1, and nL,tO; the initiation time of the Lt fracture unit at to is defined as TF,L,tO and the fluid pressure in the Lt fracture unit at to is PF,L,tO, wherein the obtained fracture-unit number, fracture-unit initiation time and fracture-unit fluid pressure after fracture propagation at to are converted into initial conditions for a reservoir-flow numerical simulation model;
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A”
This limitation outlines mathematic relationships, such as “the total number of fracture units” and “fluid pressure” of a fracture unit by relating them to variables such as P and N. Where the conversion to initial conditions for a model is to change the numeric value of variables used in the simulation model, which is a further recitation of the mathematic abstract idea.
Therefore this limitation is a recitation of mathematic relationships which is an abstract idea.
Step 4: Based on data obtained in Step 3, employ a gas-water dual medium seepage model for numerical calculation in combination with a embedded discrete fractures to simulate fracturing-fluid leak-off, single-phase flow in hydraulic fractures, and gas-water seepage in the matrix system and the micro-fracture system, and obtain a fluid pressure of hydraulic fracture units, a pressure distribution in a matrix system, a water saturation distribution in the matrix system, a pressure distribution in a micro-fracture system, and a water saturation distribution in the micro-fracture system at ti during fracturing operation, wherein the gas-water dual medium seepage model comprises a leak-off model from a hydraulic fracture unit to a micro-fracture grid, a single-phase flow model in hydraulic fracturing, and a seepage model of matrix and micro-fracture systems during fracturing;
The data of step 3 is mathematic values. As understood by one normally skilled in the art and as defined broadly and in view of the specifications, the gas-water dual medium seepage model is a mathematic model. In combination with the “embedded discrete fractures” as outlined above is considered as either a judgement, or a mathematic integration. For instance, the values associated with the fractures is used in the model equation.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation expressly recites performing a “numerical calculation” using data from step 3 (mathematic values) to determine “the fluid pressure of hydraulic fracture units, the pressure distribution in the matrix system, the water saturation distribution in the matrix system, the pressure distribution in the micro-fracture system, and the water saturation distribution in the micro-fracture system at t1 during fracturing operation:” (other mathematic values).
The ”MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping.”
Furthermore, the limitations of what is being simulated does not “fluid leek off single phase flow etc.” do not suggest or imply a separation from the mathematic concept, as these are further additions to a mathematic simulation.
Because this claim limitation pertains to the express recitation of a mathematic calculation, alongside the mental process of considering the combination “embedded discrete fractures,” this limitation recites an abstract idea.
Step 5: Based on data obtained in Step 4, repeat Step 2 to 4, and calculate a fluid pressure in the hydraulic fracture unit, a pressure distribution in the matrix system, a water saturation distribution in the matrix system, a pressure distribution in the micro- fracture system, and a water saturation distribution in the micro-fracture system at t2;
As stated previously, steps 2-4 are considered abstract ideas.
As outlined above, the data obtained in step 4 are the results of the mathematic calculations. This data is numerical values, i.e.: pressure.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This claim limitation expressly recites to , “calculate” values based on the values of other data. As understood when viewed generally, this is a user performing a mathematic calculation using pieces of data to calculate other data.
Therefore, this limitation recites a mathematic calculation which is an abstract idea.
Step 6: Repeat Step 5 until time reaches a fracturing time tend to obtain a number of hydraulic fracture units,a water saturation distribution of matrix system and a water saturation distribution of micro-fracture system at tend;
As stated above, step 5 is the abstract idea of performing a mathematic calculation.
This claim limitation pertains to the performance of the mathematic calculation of step 5 repeatedly. Therefore, this limitation also pertains to the performance of a mathematic calculation and recites an abstract idea.
Step 7: Calculate the stimulated reservoir volume at tend according to the data obtained in Step 6, comprising: determining a matrix-system stimulation range by comparing the water saturation distribution of the matrix system at tend with an initial water saturation distribution of the matrix system, determining a micro-fracture-system stimulation range by comparing the water saturation distribution of the micro-fracture system at tend with an initial water saturation distribution of the micro-fracture system, and calculating the stimulated reservoir volume based on the matrix-system stimulation range, the micro-fracture-system stimulation range, reservoir thickness, matrix porosity, micro-fracture porosity, hydraulic fracture length after fracturing, and the number of hydraulic fracture units at tend.
The data obtained in step 6 is “the number of hydraulic fracture units, water saturation distribution of matrix system and water saturation distribution of micro-fracture system at t end:” which are numeric values.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation expressly recites to “Calculate the stimulated reservoir volume at tend [a value] according to the data obtained in Step 6 [other values] ”
Furthermore, the recitation of what is being calculated, does not change the claim limitation to being directed towards performing mathematic calculations.
Therefore, this claim limitation pertains to the abstract idea of performing a mathematic calculation
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites A reservoir numerical simulation method for determining a stimulated reservoir volume of horizontal wells by coupling hydraulic-fracture propagation with reservoir flow during a fracturing operation,
The claim references the field of reservoirs throughout the claim. The claim applies the abstract ideas of mathematic calculations to determine values to determine values related to the field of fracturing (i.e.: pressure). The claim also applies the abstract idea of “establishing a grid” and “adding/modifying fractures” to the field of fracturing.
The MPEP 2106.05(h) states “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”
Because the claim limitations throughout the claim merely indicate a field of use to perform the judicial exceptions, the claim limitations above as well as throughout the claim do noy integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of amount to significantly more.
Step 1: Obtain a reservoir geological model of the target and
This claim limitation as outlined broadly encompasses receiving a geological model using computer technology. Where when defined broadly, a geological model encompasses computer stored data.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “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.”
Therefore, the use of a computer or other machinery to simply obtain a reservoir geological model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, the above additional elements do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4:
Step 2-1: Assuming that the fluid pressure in each fracture unit is the same, a fluid pressure at the fracture tip is equal to a fluid pressure in the fracture unit at the fracture tip at to;
This limitation refers to the fracture tips that are imposed onto the reservoir grid, which were found to be an abstract idea of conceptual drawn fractures onto a mathematic grid.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) states “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A” The “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
This limitation outlines a mathematic relationship between the fracture units on the grid with values used in the equations. For example, “, the fluid pressure at the fracture tip is equal to the fluid pressure in the fracture unit at the fracture tip at t0” can be understood as (FPtip = FPunit@t0)
Therefore this limitation is a recitation of a mathematic relationship and further recites an abstract idea.
Step 2-2: Determine a coordinates of upper and lower tip positions of each fracture cluster in a x-y coordinate system according to a fracture unit position in to, which are respectively denoted as (xl,yi), ..., (xe,ye);
As already stated above, this limitation refers to the fracture tips that are imposed onto the reservoir grid, which were found to be an abstract idea of conceptual drawn fractures onto a mathematic grid.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “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. “ and further MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
One ordinarily skilled in the art is able to observe a mathematic grid and determine the coordinates of the upper and lower tips of each fracture. The user could use a pen and paper to denote each tip in its x and y coordinates.
Therefore, this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Step 2-3: Take a center of a first fracture unit as a origin, an extension direction of the first fracture unit as a y direction and a direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the first fracture unit as an x direction, establish a local x- y coordinate system, and convert position coordinates of all fracture tips in Step 2-2 into position coordinates in the local x- y coordinate system, which are respectively denoted as (x1, y1 )’ … (Xc-yC)’
As already stated above, this limitation refers to the fracture tips that are imposed onto the reservoir grid, which were found to be an abstract idea of conceptual drawn fractures onto a mathematic grid.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
The “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
As stated previously, the extension of initial fractures to the reservoir grid is a mental process which can be performed with a pen and paper. This is a conceptual extension of fractures onto a mathematic grid, not a physical action being performed. The “taking the center of the fracture as the origin” is the action of observing the fractures along the grid and locating the center of those fractures. “the extension direction of the first fracture unit as the y direction and the direction perpendicular to the extension of the first fracture unit as the x direction”, is a recitation of how the extensions is being performed. One ordinarily skilled in the art could understand how to extend fractures to a certain direction based on various factors. Furthermore, this is a recitation of math which defines the relationship between the fractures and the mathematic grid. See “establish a local x- y coordinate system, and convert the position coordinates of all fracture tips in Step 2-2 into the position coordinates in the local x- y coordinate system, which are respectively denoted as ( X1, y1), ... , ( xe, Ye);” establishing a coordinate system and converting positions into another coordinate system is a recitation of a mathematic calculation, where the word “convert” is a replacement for the word “calculate” in order to “calculate” the new coordinates.
Therefore, this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Step 2-4: Calculate normal discontinuous displacement of the first, second, ..., and fracture unit at the eth fracture tip at to;
As understood by the examiner and when defined broadly, the “the normal discontinuous displacement” is understood to be a numeric value.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation pertains to an explicit recitation of a “calculation” to determine a mathematic value. Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Step 2-5: Overlay all the normal discontinuous displacements at the et fracture tip calculated in Step 2-4, and calculate a stress intensity factor at the et fracture tip at to with a stress intensity factor calculation model at the fracture tip on a basis of a overlaid normal discontinuous displacement.
The specifications does not provide a definition of “overlay.” As understood by the examiner and one ordinarily skilled in the art, Overlay likely is understood as taking all the different displacements calculated and factor them into the same mathematic calculation. The stress intensity factor calculation model is a mathematic model.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation pertains to an explicit recitation of a “calculation” using a mathematic model to determine a mathematic value associated with the stress intensity factor. Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
The method according to Claim 4, wherein in Step 2-4, the normal discontinuous displacement of the first fracture unit at the eth fracture tip at to can be calculated by the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
835
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where, Di,e,to is a normal discontinuous displacement generated by the first fracture unit at the eth fracture tip at to, in mm; Pe,to is the fluid pressure at the et fracture tip at to, in MPa; ch is [[the]]a minimum horizontal principal stress of the reservoir, in MPa; Axx(fa(l,e), fb(1and fc(l,e) are all intermediate functions in the calculation process; al is a angle between a x-axis of the local x- y coordinate system of the first fracture unit and [[the]]a x-axis of the x-y coordinate system; E is Young's modulus of reservoir rocks, in GPa; v is Poisson's ratio of reservoir rock; xe and ye are the coordinates of the et fracture tip in the local x- y coordinate system of the first fracture unit; 41 is the length of the first fracture unit, in m; In Step 2-4, the method for calculating the normal discontinuous displacement of the second, ..., fracture unit at the eth fracture tip at to is the same as that for the normal discontinuous displacement of the first fracture unit at the et fracture tip at to, so that Equations (1) to (3) are used to calculated the normal discontinuous displacement of the second, ..., and fracture unit at the eth fracture tip at to
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation pertains to defining how the calculations are performed in earlier steps. This claim introduces equations and its variables. Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
The method for determining the stimulated reservoir volume of horizontal wells by coupling reservoir flow according to Claim 5, wherein in Step 2-5, the calculation model of the stress intensity factor at the fracture tip is as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
122
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where, K,e,to is the stress intensity factor at the eth fracture tip at to, in MPa7H ; re is a half length of fracture unit at the et fracture tip, in mm; De,to is the total normal discontinuous displacement at the eth fracture tip at to in mm; DL,e,to is the normal discontinuous displacement generated by the Lth fracture unit at the tip of the et fracture at to, in mm.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation pertains to defining how the calculations are performed in earlier steps. This claim introduces equations and its variables. Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 8:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein in Step 4, the gas-water dual medium seepage model comprises:
the leak-off model from the hydraulic fracture unit to the micro-fracture grid
PNG
media_image3.png
154
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where , QF-fw is a leak-off between the hydraulic fracture unit and a micro- fracture grid, in m3; C is a leak-off coefficient; T is a current moment, in s; TFis a initiation time of hydraulic fracture unit, TF=TF,L,tO and L=1, 2, ..., nL,to-1, nL,to;Kfis [[the]]a permeability of micro-fracture grid, D; IF is the length of hydraulic fracture unit, in m,IF=4L and L=1, 2, ..., nL,to-1,nL,to; H is reservoir thickness, in m; [wis [[the]]a viscosity of fracturing fluid, in mPa-s; average normal distance from one point in the micro-fracture grid to one hydraulic fracture unit, in m; PF is the fluid pressure of hydraulic fracture unit, in MPa, PF=PF,L,tO and L=1, 2, ..., nL,to-1,nL,to; Pfw is [[the]]a water pressure of micro-fracture grid, in MPa; Af is [[the]]an area of micro-fracture grid, in m2;lFf is [[the]]a distance between [[the]]an area unit of micro-fracture grid and [[the]]a fracture k, in m;
the single-phase flow model in hydraulic fracturing:
PNG
media_image4.png
203
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where, p is an unit conversion coefficient; KF is a permeability of hydraulic fracture, D; Bw is a volume coefficient of fracturing fluid; Swell is the coefficient to judge an intersection relationship between hydraulic fracture unit and wellbore; if the fracture unit intersects with the wellbore, Swen=1; if not intersect, Swenl=0; qFw is flow exchange between hydraulic fracture unit and wellbore, in m3; VF is a volume of hydraulic fracture unit, in m3; )F is a porosity of hydraulic fracture, in %; wF is a width of hydraulic fracture unit, in m; Pwf is a flow pressure at the bottom of the well, in MPa; req is effective radius, in m; rwell is wellbore radius, in m; s is surface coefficient; HF is a height of hydraulic fracture unit, in m;
(3) the seepage model of matrix and micro-fracture systems during fracturing:
PNG
media_image5.png
343
537
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where, V is Hamiltonian operator; Krrw and Kfrg are relative permeability of liquid and gas in the micro-fracture grid; 6f is a parameter for judging whether the micro-fracture grid contains hydraulic fractures, when the micro-fracture grid is crossed by hydraulic fractures, Sr=l; when the micro-fracture grid is not crossed by hydraulic fractures, Sr=0; Vf is [a volume of micro-fracture grid, in m3; Km is matrix permeability, in mD; Kmr, and Kmrg are relative permeability of liquid and gas in the micro-fracture grid; Pmw and Pmg are pressure of liquid and gas in the matrix grid, in MPa; #r and #m are porosity of micro-fracture and matrix, in %; Sfw and Sfg are saturation of the liquid and gas in the micro-fracture grid; pg is a viscosity of gas, in mPa-s; Bg is a volume coefficient of gas; Pfg is a gas pressure of the micro-fracture grid, in MPa; Smw and Smg are saturation of liquid and gas in the matrix grid; Pfc and Pmc are capillary forces of micro-fracture and matrix, in MPa;
Initial conditions:
PNG
media_image6.png
447
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where, PF(L) is the fluid pressure of the Lh fracture unit in the seepage model calculation, in MPa; Prw(ij) and Pmw(i,j) are liquid pressure of micro-fracture and matrix systems at a grid position of (i,j) in seepage model calculation, in MPa; Pfwi,j,to and Pmwi,j,to are liquid pressure of micro-fracture and matrix systems at grid position (i,j) at to, in MPa; Srw(ij) and Smw(i,j) are the water saturation of micro-fracture and matrix systems at the grid position of (i,j) in seepage model calculation; S wi,j,to and Smwij,to are the water saturation of micro-fracture and matrix systems at grid position (i,j) at to; TF(L) is the initiation time of the Lth fracture unit in the seepage model calculation, in s; T is the current time, in s.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation pertains to defining how the calculations are performed in earlier steps. This claim introduces equations and its variables. Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 9:
The method Claim 1, wherein in Step 7, the stimulated reservoir volume can be calculate by the following equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
137
547
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where, Vo is the stimulated reservoir volume, in m3; ai,ij is a judgment parameter of a fracturing stimulation range in the matrix system; when Smw i,j,tend >Smw ij,to, the matrix system at the (i,j) grid position is stimulated and al,i,j=1; when Smw i,j,tend
PNG
media_image8.png
87
14
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Smw i,j,to,ai,,j=0; H is reservoir thickness, in m; +m is [[the]]a porosity of the matrix, in %; a2,i,j is the judgment parameter of the fracturing stimulation range in the micro-fracture system; when Sfwi,j,tend > Sfwij,to, the micro- fracture system at the (i,j) grid position is stimulated and a2,i,j=1; when Sfwijtend<_Sfwi,j,to,a2,i,j=0; #r is the porosity of micro-fracture, in %; LF,tend is the length of hydraulic fracture after fracturing, in m; nL,tend is the number of hydraulic fracture units at tend.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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.”
This limitation pertains to defining how the calculations are performed in earlier steps. This claim introduces equations and its variables. Therefore this limitation is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights