DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: WOR and WOR’ are not defined in the claims before the terms are used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 both recite “calculating WOR’ over the period of time.” It is unclear what WOR’ is. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the derivative in time of the water oil ratio.
Claims 1 and 11 both recite “accepting a selection of or making a comparison of” and then goes on to recite “weighting and scoring each of the comparison and the additional type of information.” It is unclear how the step of accepting OR making a comparison could be in the alternative when the later steps requires making a comparison. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as making a comparison being required.
Claims 1 and 11 both recite “a likely water source.” The term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the most likely water source from the library of potential water sources.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claims recite that “the additional type of information about the well is selected from the group consisting of.” However, the independent claims from which claims 7 and 17 depend recite “an additional type of information about the well selected from the group consisting of.” The phrase “consisting of” is a closed ended transitional phrase. The later group is not a narrowing of the group in the independent claims. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends since there are selections from the group of claims 7 and 17 that are not present in the independent claims. The fact that the limitations in the group of claims 7 and 17 are not present in the independent claims means that the phrase “consisting of” excludes them as possibilities.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 11 recites abstract limitations, including: “calculating WOR' over the period of time;” “accepting a selection of or making a comparison of the WOR or WOR' over time to a particular WOR or WOR' case history from a library of WOR and WOR' case histories that correlate with various types of water sources in a library of potential water sources;” and “weighting and scoring each of the comparison and the additional type of information to suggest a diagnosis of a likely water source from the library of potential water sources.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claims recites the additional elements of: an apparatus for measuring flow and WOR of a fluid mixture produced through a casing of a well; an analytical tool; accepting the measured flow and the WOR over a period of time; and accepting an additional type of information about the well selected from the group consisting of reservoir properties, completion history, production history, injection history, and interventions history, wherein the additional type of information is correlated positively or negatively with at least one type of a potential water source in the library of potential water sources.
“{A]n apparatus for measuring flow and WOR of a fluid mixture produced through a casing of a well” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The functions of the analytical tool is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“[A]ccepting the measured flow and the WOR over a period of time” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[A] an additional type of information about the well selected from the group consisting of reservoir properties, completion history, production history, injection history, and interventions history, wherein the additional type of information is correlated positively or negatively with at least one type of a potential water source in the library of potential water sources” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process/product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the recited step of measuring flow and WOR of a fluid mixture produced through a casing of a well using an apparatus is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Kosel (US 2021/0054739 see ¶ [0003]) discloses sensors used for measuring flow rates and water oil fraction is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional element analytical tool). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accepting data (i.e., measured flow, WOR, additional type of information) is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “accepting” (i.e., importing or receiving) is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites, “the apparatus for measuring flow and WOR is operatively connected to the analytical tool, whereby the analytical tool can accept the WOR data in real time and operate in real time.” Operatively connecting tools so that they can transmit data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of transmitting/accepting is considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claims 3-10 and 12-20 further recite:
the analytical tool is additionally capable of removing WOR data that is inconsistent or noisy, whereby the retained data of the WOR and WOR' over the period of time is more likely to be reliable;
removing WOR data that is inconsistent or noisy is based on trend analysis or crosschecking with field data and offset wells;
the analytical tool is additionally capable of presenting a proposed solution for each of the potential water sources in the library of potential water sources;
the additional type of information includes at least two different types of information about the well;
the additional type of information about the well is selected from the group consisting of: natural fractures, high production draw down, poor or good cement bond, permeability anisotropy, Hz permeability contrast, active bottom aquifer presence, water cut increase after stimulation, salinity of produced water matching or close to that of edge aquifer, edge aquifer presence, water-oil contact ("WOC") near the production zone, barrier breakdown, hydraulic fracture history, acid job history, pin hole/corrosion in casing;
the library of potential water sources includes at least two selected from the group consisting of: casing leak, channeling behind casing, completion near or in a water zone, high permeability streak, injector communication breakthrough, bottom water coning, fracture out of zone;
each of the potential water sources is classified as at least one of the group consisting of: near wellbore related, reservoir related, or stimulation related;
the analytical tool is additionally capable of suggesting a suitable treatment solution from a database of treatment solutions for controlling water production.
the step of measuring flow and WOR is in real time and the method is performed in real time;
a step of removing WOR data that is inconsistent or noisy, whereby the retained data of the WOR and WOR' over the period of time is more likely to be reliable;
removing WOR data that is inconsistent or noisy is based on trend analysis or crosschecking with field data and offset wells;
a step of presenting a proposed solution for each of the potential water sources in the library of potential water sources;
the additional type of information includes at least two different types of information about the well;
the additional type of information about the well is selected from the group consisting of: natural fractures, high production draw down, poor or good cement bond, permeability anisotropy, Hz permeability contrast, active bottom aquifer presence, water cut increase after stimulation, salinity of produced water matching or close to that of edge aquifer, edge aquifer presence, water-oil contact ("WOC") near the production zone, barrier breakdown, hydraulic fracture history, acid job history, pin hole/corrosion in casing;
the library of potential water sources includes at least two selected from the group consisting of: casing leak, channeling behind casing, completion near or in a water zone, high permeability streak, injector communication breakthrough, bottom water coning, fracture out of zone;
each of the potential water sources is classified as at least one of the group consisting of: near wellbore related, reservoir related, or stimulation related; and
a step of suggesting a suitable treatment solution from a database of treatment solutions for controlling water production
which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious measuring the flow and WOR of a fluid mixture, determining the derivative of the WOR and then using the measured values in combination with other data to weight and score the information to determine a most likely water source in combination with the other claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Al-Dhafeeri (US 2023/0123032) discloses using WOR and WOR’ to determine a type of water breakthrough.
Bowlin (US 6,374,669) discloses identifying the precise source of water influx in a wellbore using video camera and an additive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights