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. 18/192,559, is filed on 03/29/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 03/29/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “selected” in the phrase “generating, based on the profiles, a ranking of the candidate wells, selecting, from the candidate wells and according to the ranking, selected candidate wells” should be replaced with “high ranking” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity because “selecting … selected candidate wells” sounds illogical as the recited candidate wells will be selected as an obvious result of selecting, but is not selected yet for selecting, and appears to mean “selecting … high ranking candidate wells”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 1 and 8, the limitation “selecting … selected candidate wells” and “selecting … selected points” should be replaced with “selecting … high raking candidate wells” and “selecting … optimal points, respectively, or with an appropriate phrases for clarity by removing confusing clutters. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 2-7 and 9-14, claims are also objected because base claims 1 and 8 are objected.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claim 8 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 8 includes limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, “analyzer”, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “facilitate” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of interpretation of a well configuration and trajectory analyzer is interpreted as a general computer system consisting of hardware and software (see specification - well configuration and trajectory analyzer (160). For example, the well configuration and trajectory analyzer (160) may include hardware and/or software, accelerate computational optimization of configuration and trajectory for multiple wells in a hydrocarbon field [0022, Fig. 1 160], the well configuration and trajectory analyzer (160) may include a computer system that is similar to the computer
system (400) described below with regard to FIG. 4 [0025, Fig. 4]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 method to perform a drilling operation in a field, (1.A) comprising:
computing a plurality of profiles of a plurality of candidate wells in the field, wherein each profile comprises a plurality of points associated with a corresponding well, each point corresponding to a configuration and trajectory of said corresponding well and comprises a value pair of performance and drilling cost of said corresponding well; (1.B)
generating, based on the plurality of profiles, a ranking of the plurality of candidate wells; (1.C)
selecting, from the plurality of candidate wells and according to the ranking, a plurality of selected candidate wells; (1.D)
selecting, from the plurality of points associated with each selected candidate well, a number of selected points; (1.E)
performing, for each of the number of selected points, reservoir simulation to generate a plurality of simulation results; (1.F)
comparing the plurality of simulation results to a pre-determined criterion to generate a validated point; (1.G)
and performing, based on the configuration and trajectory of the validated point, the drilling operation. (1.H)”.
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 - Method).
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.B)– (1.D) 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/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
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 method to perform a drilling operation in a field” and “performing, based on the configuration and trajectory of the validated point, the drilling operation”;
In Claim 2: “available computing resources”;
In Claim 5: “obtaining rock and fluid properties of the field”;
In Claim 8: “A well configuration and trajectory analyzer to facilitate a drilling operation in a field”, “a computer processor; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality“
In Claim 15: “A system comprising: a wellsite in a field for performing a drilling operation; and a well configuration and trajectory analyzer”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method to perform a drilling operation in a field” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an intended purpose and even the field of use is recited too broadly, making the preamble appear to be an effort to monopolize the field.
The limitation/step “performing, based on the configuration and trajectory of the validated point, the drilling operation” represents a standard post solution activity in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception because the drilling operation is recited in a high level of generality without specific details.
As per claim 2, the limitations/elements “available computing resources” represent use of general computer resources and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 5: the limitation/step “obtaining rock and fluid properties of the field” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 8: the additional element “A well configuration and trajectory analyzer … comprising: a computer processor; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the general computer system consisting of hardware and software with an intended purpose and even the field of use is recited too broadly, making the preamble appear to be an effort to monopolize the field.
The limitations/elements “a computer processor; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality“ represent general computer components and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 15, the additional elements in the preamble “A system comprising: a wellsite in a field for performing a drilling operation; and a well configuration and trajectory analyzer, (interpreted as a general computer system) make up for a meaningful limitation because the preamble recites a wellsite and a general computer system (standard elements in the art) and simply link them with an intended purpose, i.e. for performing a drilling operation.
The limitations/elements “a wellsite in a field for performing a drilling operation” and “a well configuration and trajectory analyzer” are standard elements in the art and they are not particular.
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 Must, SR, Li, AH and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha (US 20240311530 A1), hereinafter ‘Must’ in view of Schulze-Riegert (R. Schulze-Riegert et al.; "Well Path Design Optimization Under Geological Uncertainty: Application to a Complex North Sea Field", SPE 136288; Society of Petroleum Engineers; October 2010; pages 1-11 (11 pages)), hereinafter ‘SR’.
As per claim 1, Must discloses
A method to perform a drilling operation in a field, (A method … for well construction [abs, 0004], method … do design wells, drilling [0003], a method for drilling a well [0026, 0110, Fig. 10]) comprising:
computing a plurality of profiles of a plurality of candidate wells in the field, (classify hot spots, gradations of production potential, baseline for … potential grades … candidate wells [0108], simulated with candidate wells, the simulation … provide a forecast of production, e.g. performance, of the candidate wells [0115])
wherein each profile comprises a plurality of points associated with a corresponding well, (the number of different design parameters for a well [0003], optimization, seeking parameters, selecting parameters in an analytical fashion [0069], well trajectory design techniques [0115]) each point corresponding to a configuration and trajectory of said corresponding well (well trajectory design techniques may be implemented to design suitable wells [0115], wells … and their configurations [0117]) and comprises values of performance and drilling cost of said corresponding well; (a relationship between reservoir properties/quality and production performance [0112], candidate wells … ranked … ordered …based on production, drilling cost, expense, rate of return [0115])
Although Must discloses production and cost being part of profiles of candidate wells, Must is not explicit on using a value pair of performance and drilling cost.
SR discloses using balance contributions, i.e. a value pair of performance and drilling cost, of a well design (cost factor for the well design, economic model, the optimizer needs to compare and balance contributions coming from produced gas volumes and the cost factor for the well design [pg. 7 par. 1-2, Table 1: Risk Factors]).
SR is in the same well design optimization art like Must.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Must in view of SR to explicitly use a value pair of performance and drilling cost representing well profile parameters for the well design optimization (See Must - the number of different design parameters for a well [0003], optimization, seeking parameters, selecting parameters in an analytical fashion [0069], well trajectory design techniques [0115]).
Must further discloses
generating, based on the plurality of profiles, a ranking of the plurality of candidate wells; (ranking and selection of candidate wells [0108], candidate wells may then be ranked or otherwise ordered, e.g., based on production, drilling risk, expense, rate of return, evaluate performance and ranking [0115, Fig. 10 1020])
selecting, from the plurality of candidate wells and according to the ranking, a plurality of selected candidate wells; (ranking and selection of candidate wells [0108])
selecting, from the plurality of points associated with each selected candidate well, a number of selected points; (realizations that are closest to the centroids may be selected as representative of the cluster [0097], for drilling a well, e.g. based on a selection of a location for the well, uncertainty analysis, the representative subset being selected, well data, geo-mechanical data [0110], ensemble of simulations generated through uncertainty analysis, opportunity index[0111])
performing, for each of the number of selected points, reservoir simulation to generate a plurality of simulation results; (production forecast, further iterations … using the … simulation, screening process [0118], forecast well performance, and select a development scenario [0119])
comparing the plurality of simulation results to a pre-determined criterion to generate a validated point; (Results of the simulation may be validated 410 by determining whether simulation results with the optimal uncertainty parameters are within an error tolerance [0067], production forecast, further iterations … using the … simulation, screening process [0118], forecast well performance, and select a development scenario [0119])
and performing, based on the configuration and trajectory of the validated point, the drilling operation. (for drilling a well [0110, Fig. 10], employ the generated visualization for drilling activities [0118]).
As per claim 8, Must discloses
A well configuration and trajectory analyzer to facilitate a drilling operation in a field, (computer systems, analysis module [0126, Fig, 11], method … for well construction [abs, 0004], method … do design wells, drilling [0003], a method for drilling a well [0026, 0110, Fig. 10]) comprising:
a computer processor; (processor [0125-1127])
and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for: (software codes can be stored in memory units and executed by processors [0125[, storage media [0126], storage media, memory [0127])
Must in view SR discloses the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claim 16, Must discloses
A system (oil field application system [0057, Fig. 3A]) comprising:
a wellsite in a field for performing a drilling operation; (oilfield, drilling operation, wellbore [0033, Fig. 1B], oilfield 300 [0057, Fig. 3A])
and a well configuration and trajectory analyzer (computer systems, analysis module [0126, Fig, 11], method … for well construction [abs, 0004], method … do design wells, drilling [0003], a method for drilling a well [0026, 0110, Fig. 10]) comprising a computer processor and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for: (processor [0125-1127], software codes can be stored in memory units and executed by processors [0125[, storage media [0126], storage media, memory [0127])
Must in view SR discloses the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Must and SR disclose claim 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
Must further discloses selecting the plurality of selected candidate wells is based on available computing resources for performing the reservoir simulation. (simulation scenarios, determine the potential performance for … area [0107], probability map, probabilistic approach … proceeded by simulation, ranking and selecting [0108], reservoir simulation [0120], any of the methods of the present disclosure may be executed by a computing system [0126, Fig. 11])
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Must and SR in view of Li (US 20180051552 A1).
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Must and SR disclose claim 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
Must further discloses
obtaining a search region surrounding a well entry point of a candidate well of the plurality of candidate wells; (optimization work flow, analyze the search space [0067], cluster centroid, one or more realizations that are closest to the centroids may be selected as representative of the cluster [0097], selection of a location for the well, ensemble of reservoir model realization [0110], ensemble of simulations … through uncertainty analysis, opportunity index, areas of higher probability, hot spots [0111], well trajectory design techniques, hot spots [0115], identify candidate injection wells and their configurations that will contribute to enhance production further [0117])
generating, within the search region, a plurality of potential configurations and trajectories; (well trajectory design techniques, hot spots [0115], process of seeking parameters that suit a given application [0069], production profiles [0121])
computing, for each of the plurality of potential configurations and trajectories (well trajectory design techniques, hot spots [0115], facilitate decision-making process targeted at field development planning [0121])
SR discloses the value pair of performance and drilling cost (produced gas volumes and the cost factor for the well design [pg. 7 par. 1-2]).
However, the set forth combined prior art is silent regarding “selecting, from the plurality of value pairs of performance and drilling cost, a plurality of dominating points based on Pareto dominance; and wherein the profile of the candidate well comprises the value pair of performance and drilling cost for each of the plurality of dominating points”.
Li discloses use of selecting Pareto efficient set of candidate trajectories for the well planning optimization (Pareto frontier approach, well trajectory, planning objective, PIs ‘Performance Indicators’ being the “best” possible; low cost and risk, a trade-off, Pareto efficient set of candidate trajectories [0188, 0190-0191, 0207-0280, Fig. 11]).
Li is in the same well trajectory candidate selection optimization art using tradeoff between performance and cost like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Li to select, from the plurality of value pairs of performance and drilling cost, a plurality of dominating points based on Pareto dominance using the value pair of performance and drilling cost for each of the plurality of dominating points, which are included in the profile of the candidate well for the well design optimization.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Must, SR and Li disclose claims 3, 10 and 17 set forth above.
Must and SR already disclose generating the plurality of potential configurations and trajectories, but are not explicit on generating … based on a predetermined inter-well constraint.
Li further discloses considering well trajectory based on a pre-determined inter-well constraint (workflow … considering well trajectory, within predetermined constraints [0153], Nudge Tool [0003, 0205, 0229-0230, 0242, 0244, 0247, 0151, 0253-0255, Fig. 14-15], a bore constraint, one or more of a main bore constraint, a lateral bore constraint, As to multiple targets, one or more particular constrains may consider a relationship or relationships between the targets.[0300], a nudge tool, nudge a portion of the trajectory before entering the reservoir. Such a nudge may be for purposes of maximizing the stay in a desired reservoir zone ‘e.g., to maximize contact between a well drilled according to the trajectory and reservoir rock’, place one or more limits on a nudge and/or on one or more trajectories to be planned ‘e.g., or planned and limited in their modification to avoid collision’ [0307, Fig. 33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to generate the plurality of potential configurations and trajectories is based on a pre-determined inter-well constraint for the well design optimization.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Must and SR in view of Al-Hussain (US 20170275987 A1), hereinafter ‘AH’.
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Must and SR disclose claims 1, 8 and 15 set forth above.
Must further discloses a well design technique searching space surrounding a target start point in the field for identifying the plurality of candidate wells and recites vertical well and the horizontal wells (search space, reservoir map shows the target areas of start … point of a horizontal well, search spaces [pg. 2 Fig. 1], well path design, search space [pg. 4 Well Design, Fig, 3], wellbore, vertical well, estimated production rates for different well trajectories [pg. 3 Fig. 2], find the optimum well position and design for horizontal wells [pg. 6 par. 3-4]), but is not explicit on the configuration comprising a main bore and a number of laterals.
AH discloses a borehole configuration comprising a main bore and a number laterals (A multilateral well is a type of directional well wherein several laterals extend outwardly from a main/central borehole [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of AH to work on candidate wells whose configuration comprising a main bore and a number of laterals for the well design optimization.
As per claims 7 and 14, Must, SR and AH disclose claim 6 and 13 set forth above.
AH further discloses each of the main bore and laterals comprises a rectilinear well trajectory (A multilateral well is a type of directional well wherein several laterals extend outwardly from a main/central borehole, The path may be straight vertical, straight horizontal, zigzag, spiral/helical, curved, wavy, and/or any combination thereof [0038]).
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Mancini (CA 2867110 A1) discloses drilling system failure risk analysis method.
Budimen (WO 2010039317 A1) discloses robust well trajectory planning.
Abacioglu (US 20130073268 A1) discloses (horizontal wells, lateral portions of the wellbore [abs], vertical and horizontal wells [0019, 0023, 0041-0043, Fig. 1 VWB HWB]).
Wang (Wang, Yixuan, and et al. "An efficient bi-objective optimization workflow using the distributed quasi-Newton method and its application to field development optimization." In SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference, p. D011S012R003. SPE, 2021) and Ahmaed (Ahmed, Ashraf Hashim Babiker. "A Pareto Frontier Well Placement and Rate Optimization." Master's thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia), 2014) also disclose using Pareto Dominance concept for the optimization of a wellbore design.
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