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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/169,056, is filed on 02/14/2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment is entered into further examination and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) to the claims, the amendment is accepted and the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendment introduced new matters. Please see the updated rejections below.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicant argues (see pg. 9 par. 4– pg. 12 par. 3) that the amended claims recites “executing production operations, using the locations of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir, exploration and production operations within the subsurface reservoir” shows an integration of a practical application to the judicial exception demonstrating an improvement to the technology by quoting 2019 PEG, p. 19-20.
Examiner respectfully submits that the newly recited limitation “executing production operations … , exploration and production operations within the subsurface reservoir” could be interpreted as part of abstract idea. For instance, production operation could mean including planning for a next action and exploration could be visual inspection under BRI. They are recited in a high level of generality without any specifics which can be treated as insignificant extra solution activities even if the limitation is not interpreted as abstract. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 103, amendment accompanied with applicant’s persuasive arguments is accepted, The allowable subject matter is indicated and would be allowable if the other rejections are overcome by further amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claims 1, 8 and 15, the limitation “executing production operations, using the locations of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir, exploration and production operations within the subsurface reservoir” lacks description support from the specification because “executing production operations” cannot be located in the specification. The specification recites “exploration and production risks” once (see specification - determined areas can be used to reduce exploration and production risks of a subsurface reservoir [0029]) in the context of determining area to avoid production risks. Specification also recites “operation” in numerous locations (see specification – computing system 1100 … used for the operations [0037-0038, Fig. 11], instructions which, when executed by a hardware-based processor perform operations [0046], all of the functional operations … realized in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer …. [0048], operations … software products [0056]), meaning computer operations, but is silent regarding “executing production operations … within the subsurface reservoir”.
As per claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claims 1, 8 and 15, the limitation “exploration and production operations” in “executing production operations, …, exploration and production operations within the subsurface reservoir” are ambiguous because the limitation is not clear whether repeating the earlier “production operations” by trying to add more specifics (with some confusion due to repetition of the same phrase) or accidentally creating a grammatical error failing to add additional meanings to an interpreted limitation “executing, using the locations of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir, production operations within the subsurface reservoir” for the sake of examination.
As per claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected.
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 nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A computer-implemented method, (1.A) comprising:
obtaining one or more borehole logs of one or more wells in a subsurface reservoir; (1.B.1)
determining, based on the one or more borehole logs, a functional relationship between an acoustic impedance of the subsurface reservoir and a volume of diagenetically produced cemented geobody in the subsurface reservoir; (1.C)
receiving, from sonic tools, reflected seismic data within the subsurface reservoir; (1.B.2)
obtaining by applying a seismic inversion process to the reflected seismic data, a plurality of acoustic impedance cubes; (1.D.1)
transforming, by using the functional relationship, the plurality of acoustic impedance cubes into anhydrite volumes within the subsurface reservoir; (1.D.2)
determining, based on the anhydrite volumes within the subsurface reservoir, a plurality of volumes of diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir; (1.D.3)
identifying, using the determined plurality of volumes of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies, locations of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir; (1.E)
and executing production operations, using the locations of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir, exploration and production operations within the subsurface reservoir.”. (1.F)
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by 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. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.C) – (1.E) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluation/judgement.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method”, “obtaining one or more borehole logs of one or more wells in a subsurface reservoir” and “receiving, from sonic tools, reflected seismic data within the subsurface reservoir” and “executing production operations … within the subsurface reservoir”;
In Claim 8: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations”;
In Claim 15: “A computer-implemented system”, “one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A computer-implemented method” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because it even fails to link the method with a particular operation or field of use although disclosing a use of a general computer. Use of a general computer is not particular in the art.
The limitation/step “obtaining one or more borehole logs of one or more wells in a subsurface reservoir” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
The limitation/step “receiving, from sonic tools, reflected seismic data within the subsurface reservoir” also represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception because the limitation is recited in a high level of generality without specific details.
The limitation/step “executing production operations, using the locations of the diagenetically produced cemented geobodies in the subsurface reservoir, exploration and production operations within the subsurface reservoir” is a standard post solution activity in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception because the limitation is recited in a high level of generality without specific details.
As per claim 8, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations” is not a meaningful limitation because it generally links the medium (product) with operations in a broad scope although it discloses employing general computer resources. The use of general computer resources is not particular in the art.
As per claim 15, the additional element in the preamble “A computer-implemented system” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because it even fails to link the system with a particular operation or field of use although disclosing a use of a general computer. Use of a general computer is not particular in the art.
The limitations/elements “one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations” represent use of general computer components and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Faward, Hamman, Aldred, Avseth, Lubbe, Harrington, Ramsey and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite subject matter which is allowable over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome current objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 1, 8 and 15, the closest prior art of record, Faward (US 20220236439 A1), Hamman (US 6302221 B1), Loizzo (Loizzo, Matteo, and et al. "Extending The Life Of A Storage Field Through Full Integrity Characterization." In Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, p. D031S095R004. SPE, 2020) and Aldred (US 10400590 B1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitations
“transforming, by using the functional relationship, the plurality of acoustic impedance cubes into anhydrite volumes within the subsurface reservoir“ (see specification - an example of multiple acoustic impedance cubes generated from seismic inversion, as well as the corresponding anhydrite cubes transformed from the multiple acoustic impedance cubes using the functional relationship [0011, Fig. 6 & 7])
in combination with other limitations.
A newly found reference, (Teixeira, Leonardo, and et al. "Rock physics and seismic inversion to identify stratification within salt section supporting velocity, facies modeling and geomechanical analysis." In Global Meeting Abstracts, pp. 5-10. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2017), discloses transforming, by using the empirical relationship, the plurality of acoustic impedance cubes into anhydrite volumes within the subsurface reservoir (salt rock type, Anhydrite, These salt rocks have different mean values of acoustic impedance and, at log scale, they may be discriminated [pg. 3 left rock par. 1 from the bottom], rock physics analysis for salt rock shows that velocity and acoustic impedance has a high correlation, polynomial equation to derive compressional velocity from acoustic impedance [pg. 3 right col par. 6], Reservoir modelling requires physical information in a spatial representation. Seismic inversion provided acoustic impedance information in three dimensional. Applying rock physics empirical relation, information from well log was distributed spatially [pg. 4 left col par. 4], salt can be discriminated by acoustic impedance value [pg. 2 left col par. 4, Fig. 2 . synthetic model traces created by layers of Anhydrite-Halite-Tachyhydrite, p-impedance]), but fails to recite the above allowable limitations.
As per claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, claims would be also allowable because base claims 1, 8 and 15 would be allowable.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are considered relevant pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taner (US 6957146 B1) discloses obtaining AI from seismic data and the relationship between AI and shale volume (transformations of seismic traces to obtain a variety of characteristics that describe the traces, which are generally referred to as "attributes". Attributes … include … acoustic impedance [col 1 line 39-48], plots showing the relation between well data Kohonen class and acoustic impedance for low volume shale, medium volume shale and high volume shale, respectively [col 3 line 38-42, FIGS. 11A, 11B and 11C], chosen lithology classes may be a function of acoustic impedance and volume shale [col 5 line 14-33], FIG. 10 shows a plot of the relation between well data Kohonen class and acoustic impedance for a portion of a well bore in which the values of all data points, irrespective of the value for volume shale at that location, is plotted [col 7 line 49-53, Fig. 10], three separate plots are utilized in which low volume shale data locations are plotted on a first plot shown in FIG. 11A, medium volume shale data locations are plotted on a second plot shown in FIG. 11B and high volume shale data locations are plotted on a third plot shown in FIG. 11C [col 7 line 54-67, Fig. 11A-11C]).
Bredesen (Bredesen, Kenneth, and et al. "Seismic amplitude analysis and rock physics modeling of a geothermal sandstone reservoir in the southern part of the Danish Basin." Geothermics 89 (2021): 101974) discloses (reservoir simulations [pg. 1 right col par. 1], evaluate the correlation between the elastic (AI and Vp/Vs) and petrophysical (porosity and shale volume) logs, to investigate whether various lithofacies are seismically distinguishable. First, we define four various reference lithofacies; A, B, C and D, based on porosity and shale volume cut-off values, and perform a linear discrimination classification [pg. 5 right col par. 2, Fig. 5]).
Lubbe (US 20190179049 A1) discloses (mapping is performed … chemostratigraphic signature of hydrocarbon reservoirs in three dimensions, [abs], rock physics model map is … formed, location in a subsurface … reservoir [0007], mapped into a three-dimensional [0048-0049, 0057, Figs, 5 and 9], mapping the 3 - D chemical composition of a subsurface reservoir [0023], Data processing system [0007, claim 1], chemostratigraphic signature is then mapped over its three-dimensional extent using a Rock Physics Template constructed by relating the elastic wireline data to the seismic impedance and chemostratigrapy data at the well locations. The result is a three-dimensional geo-body, representing the chemical signature of the reservoir, which are then proxies for important hydrocarbon reservoir attributes, which in turn reduces the drilling risk significantly [0061]) and also discloses (formation lithology and attributes, Anhydrite [0013, 0053-0054, Fig. 6A]).
Ramsay (US 20160161635 A1) discloses (lithotype proportion map [0022-0023], Probability maps may be generated and visualized for thresholds defined by any quantile or for a range of quantiles [0025], cutoff [0029-0030, 0035, 0046, 0059, 0061, 0063, claims 13 and 19]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY whose telephone number is (408)918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights