DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-21 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
3. Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
4.1 Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception/not new (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a system, computer-readable medium method, comprising:
“performing a multi-phase fluid flow simulation with respect to time using the model and a reservoir simulator to generate results, wherein the reservoir simulator implements a sequential solver that solves a pressure equation part for at least capillary pressure for computation of a water phase velocity and solves a transport equation part based at least in part on the water phase velocity for fluid transport in the reservoir, wherein the pressure equation part comprises an upwind in time coefficient that depends on at least one capillary pressure with respect to water saturation derivative to stabilize the reservoir simulator”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step could reasonably fall within a mathematical concept, as evidenced by the specification at [pages 7-13] and the dependent claims. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims merely cover using a solver to solve mathematical equations to arrive at a plurality of solutions by way of mathematical computations; and thus, are not statutory, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a non-transitory/memory … medium”, “processor-executable instructions”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0047]-[0059], and fig.5) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0057]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “receiving data during production of fluid from a hydrocarbon reservoir, wherein the fluid comprises at least water and hydrocarbons”; and updating a model of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the data, wherein the model characterizes the hydrocarbon reservoir in part by water saturation”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities” that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and the step of: “optimizing production of hydrocarbons from the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the results” fall under post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a non-transitory/memory … medium”, “processor-executable instructions”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0047-0059, and fig.5) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0057]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “receiving data during production of fluid from a hydrocarbon reservoir, wherein the fluid comprises at least water and hydrocarbons”; and updating a model of the hydrocarbon reservoir using the data, wherein the model characterizes the hydrocarbon reservoir in part by water saturation”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities” that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and the step of: “optimizing production of hydrocarbons from the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the results” fall under post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
4.2 Dependent claims 2-16, and 18-20 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations: (claim 2), “wherein the results comprise hydrocarbon reservoir pressure values with respect to time” (mental process). (claim 3); “wherein the results comprise hydrocarbon reservoir water phase velocity results” (mental process); (claim 4); “wherein the result comprise hydrocarbon reservoir fluid flow results for a number of wells that extend into the hydrocarbon reservoir” (mental process); (claim 5); “wherein receiving data comprises receiving data for one or more flow control devices and/or for an enhanced-oil recovery process” (data gathering); (claim 6) “wherein the upwind in time coefficient is equal to a reciprocal of one plus a product of transmissibility multiplied by mobility multiplied by a time step size multiplied by a sum of a first ratio and a second ratio, wherein the first ratio is of a capillary pressure with respect to water saturation derivative of a source cell divided by a source cell volume, and wherein the second ratio is of a capillary pressure with respect to water saturation derivative of a target cell divided by a target cell volume” (mathematical process); (claim 7); “performing a quality check during the multi-phase fluid flow simulation, detecting a stability issue, and, responsive to the stability issue, reducing a time step of the multi-phase fluid flow simulation to stabilize the reservoir simulator” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 8) “wherein, during the multi-phase fluid flow simulation, the reservoir simulator is stabilized by the upwind in time coefficient that depends on at least one capillary pressure with respect to water saturation derivative and by performing one or more instances of the quality check” (mathematical concept); (claim 9) “wherein reducing the time step causes a reduction in the upwind in time coefficient” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 10) “determining a location in the model for implementation of the upwind in time coefficient that depends on at least one capillary pressure with respect to water saturation derivative to stabilize the reservoir simulator” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 11) “wherein the location depends on physical properties at a corresponding location in the hydrocarbon reservoir” (mental process); (claim 12) “wherein the location in the hydrocarbon reservoir comprises a relative, high capillary pressure for pores in rock of the hydrocarbon reservoir” (mental process), (claim 13) “wherein the reservoir simulator is stabilized with respect to water phase capillary pressure dominating fluid flux and dispersion of water saturation” (mental process); (claim 14) “wherein, as water saturation derivative increases, the upwind in time coefficient decreases” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 15) “wherein, as a time step of the reservoir simulator decreases, the upwind in time coefficient decreases” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 16) “wherein optimizing production of hydrocarbons from the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the results comprises adjusting at least one flow control device” (WURC post-solution activities); claims 18-20 do not appear to add anything more to the recited abstract, but instruction and generic components to perform the abstract and all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
5.1 Bratvedt et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2004/0015295 A1) teaches a method for determining flow in a volume of two or more fluid components.
5.2 Rabbani et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0110849) teaches a method and system for simulating multiphase flow through porous media based on one or more input parameters.
5.3 Kumar et al. (US Patent No. 9,020,793) teaches a method, a system and a program storage device for predicting a property of a fluid, such as fluid production from a subterranean reservoir containing heavy oil entrained with gas.
6. Claims 1-21 are rejected and this action is non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights