1Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/30/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11 and 14-20 are amended. In view of the amendment made, the previous 101 rejection is still maintained and the prior rejection is modified. The previous claim interpretation and its rejection is withdrawn in view of amendment made. See office action.
Applicant 101 arguments
As described above and disclosed in the Specification, the claimed invention involves complex manipulation of computer-coded data entailing data sets comprising thousands of lines of code relating to unbounded numbers of fractures and gridblocks used to simulate subterranean reservoirs. Thus, since claims 1-20 recite limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper, the claims do not recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simulating subterranean reservoirs, fractures, and fluid flow is an abstract process. The complexity or the specific field of application does not inherently change its nature as a mathematical model. The applicant's arguments, which mentions "complex manipulation of computer-coded data," rely on generic computer components performing standard functions. The argument that the computer is necessary due to the scale of "thousands of lines of code" is a reference to a conventional computer benefit, not a technical improvement to the computer itself. The simulation claims here appear to use the computer as a tool to perform an abstract mathematical function. The claim invention does not improve the computer's capabilities itself, but merely uses the computer to execute a complex, abstract process.
Applicant arguments
The Office Action also posits: "the determining the transmissibility factor falls under the mathematical concept in view of the instant specification provided by the mathematical equation and calculation." (Page 4). Analysis of judicial exceptions is to be focused on the claim limitations, not the Specification. According to MPEP § 2106.04, the Examiner is "to identify that the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) aligns with at least one judicial exception." (emphasis added). The noted claim limitation does not recite a mathematical concept.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) 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. Thus, determining transmissibility factors do involve a mathematical concept under Step 1 in view of section II of specification, because they are not merely based on or involve a mathematical concept, but recite a mathematical concept such as a formula or calculation for transmissibility, distinguishing it from a claim that only involves calculations. The claimed limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract idea of determining transmissibility factors by showing they fail to provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself. Also, the claim limitations for determining transmissibility factors, while involving a mathematical concept, are not sufficiently inventive to add significantly more to the abstract idea of transmissibility itself, and thus fail to transform the abstract idea into an eligible application.
Applicant arguments
Amended independent claims 1, 10, and 20 are directed toward an invention which, when viewed as a whole, provide an improved method for simulating a subterranean region with 2D and 3D unstructured fracture geometries, representative of an improvement in reservoir simulator technology and the technical field of subterranean fracture geometry simulation.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because what is disclosed is not an improvement to technology but rather is, at most, an alleged improvement to the abstract idea itself, described in a conclusory manner. Any improvement is to the mathematical model or algorithm, which is an abstract idea, not to the underlying computer or software technology itself. The claims do not describe how the simulation is implemented in a non-conventional or innovative way that would provide a technological improvement. They merely describe what the simulation does (models subterranean flow). The claim describes simulating a subterranean region using 2D and 3D unstructured fracture geometries. This is a mathematical modeling method based on well-known scientific principles of fluid flow and geological structures. Applying the principles in a computer simulation is a mental process that could be done with a pen and paper, albeit much more slowly. The use of a computer does not change the fundamental nature of the claim as an abstract idea. The applicant's argument focuses on the simulation's subject matter (subterranean fracture geometry) rather than how the underlying computer technology is improved. Thus, claim is directed to abstract ideas.
Applicant arguments
Claim 1 recites an improvement in reservoir simulator technology and the technical field of subterranean fracture geometry simulation by providing a non-intrusive approach using a subterranean reservoir simulator's original digital data output in a process entailing 2D and 3D unstructured grids with fracture discretization and fracture/matrix transmissibility factors to create a new digital data set for insertion back into the simulator with instruction to run simulation of the subterranean region accounting for the transmissibility factors (See Figures 20 and 21 above). Reservoir simulators are known and patented technology used extensively in the technical field of subterranean fracture geometry simulation; The USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance presentation example on Step 2A prong 2 claim analysis. This example analyzes a claim reciting a computer system using a processor to relocate icons on a graphical user interface. The guidance states that the additional elements (in bold above) "recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices." (emphasis added). Thus, the claim is deemed eligible because it is not directed to an abstract idea or any other judicial exception.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim process is fundamentally a series of mathematical computations and modeling steps. It takes existing digital data, applies calculations involving 2D and 3D grids and determining transmissibility factors, and generates a new data set. The core innovation described—accurately accounting for subterranean fracture geometry and matrix/fracture interactions—is an advancement in mathematical modeling, not an improvement to the simulator itself. While the claimed method is likely too complex for a human to perform manually, the concept of using existing data to create a new, more refined model is a fundamental problem-solving technique. The use of a generic computer to execute these calculations does not automatically render the idea patent-eligible. It is the Examiner position that using the simulator's "original digital data output" and inserting a "new digital data set back into the simulator" for a new simulation run. This indicates the simulator is being used in a conventional, generic manner to execute the improved abstract idea. The claim does not identify a non-conventional or improved computer component. Instead, it uses generic computer functions, such as processing digital data, performing calculations, and running a simulation. Merely reciting generic computer implementation is not enough to confer eligibility. The claim does not improve the actual functioning of the computer itself, such as by increasing the computer's speed, improving its graphics display, or reducing memory usage. The benefit is for the user of the simulator (i.e., a better simulation result), not for the underlying computer technology. The applicant's emphasis on a "non-intrusive approach" is a strategic choice, not a technical improvement. It describes how the method interacts with the simulator (i.e., by manipulating input/output data rather than modifying the simulator's source code), but it does not represent an inventive concept.
Unlike the example 37, where the claim is directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer itself., the instant claim is very different than the example 37 and claim limitation such as the modification of the data set and the subsequent re-running of the simulation do not alter how the simulator itself functions. It simply provides the simulator with new input derived from an abstract mathematical concept. The claim, therefore, is directed at most to an alleged improvement to the abstract simulation process itself, which is not patent eligible.
Applicant 103 arguments
Neither Moinfar et al., Marcondes et al., nor Sword, JR. et al.. alone or combined, teach or suggest the invention of amended claims 1, 10, or 20. The amended claims further clarify, inter alia, how the creation of control volumes using sub-elements in the matrix grid includes at least one control volume associated with a fracture. The Office Action points to Marcondes et al. Marcondes et al. propose simulation techniques relating to multiphase fluid flow in subsurface strata. Marcondes et al. lack any teaching or suggestion relating to subterranean simulation accounting for fracture geometries. Thus, Marcondes et al. do not fix the deficiencies of Moinfar etal. with respect to amended claims 1, 10, and 20.
Examiner response
Regarding the newly amended limitation, “creation of control volumes using sub-elements in the matrix grid includes at least one control volume associated with a fracture”, Examiner added the new art Monteagudo et al. ("Control‐volume method for numerical simulation of two‐phase immiscible flow in two‐and three‐dimensional discrete‐fractured media." Water resources research 40.7 (2004)). See office action for detail.
Applicant arguments
Sword does not teach or suggest the determination of transmissibility factors between a combined fracture segment and a control volume via the merger of fracture segments of the same fracture in sub-elements contained within the control volume. First, Sword deals with faults, not fractures. The method to generate grids proposed by Sword cannot simulate fractures. As understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, faults will have displacement and fractures do not. Thus, although the two may be defined as "discontinuities," this difference results in vastly different challenges and different scientific methods for their simulation. Second, regarding the merging step, Sword proposes the merger of polyhedral cells (3D), while the present invention merges fracture segments (2D). In Sword's proposed method, the intersection between the depositional grid (polyhedral grid) and the earth model grid (tetrahedral) results in a lot of small polyhedra (fragmented polyhedra). The merging happens between fragmented polyhedra that originate from the same polyhedral cell in the depositional grid. The reason for the merger is that the fragmented polyhedra cells have no physical meaning. They are purely a middle product of the geometrical intersection. In contrast, Applicants' invention merges connected fracture segments that are in the same control volume, reducing the number of final fracture segments. Sword proposes the merging of fragmented polyhedra originating from the same depositional grid cell. Applicant does not merge all fracture segments originating from the same fracture. Instead, the claimed invention only merges the parts within the same control volume.
Examiner response
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). First Sword teaches fractures in the form of geological discontinuities. See Sword [0037] Geological discontinuities can be faults, fractures, or other changes in reservoir structure. One or more of the plurality of polyhedral cells that conform to geological discontinuities corresponds to fracture segments. Primary reference Moinfar teaches all the claims features except the merging step of fracture segments of the same fracture. Moinfar also teaches fracture segments of the same fracture. (see fig 4.4 and page 50) Moinfar also teaches determining transmissibility factors between the fracture segments and the control volumes; (see page, 49, 58 and equation 4.7-see fig 4.6 (a-c)) In the related field of invention, Sword teaches the merging step of fracture cells of the same discrete values across the same fracture (thick diagonal line fig 2) to determine the transmissibility factors, thus it is obvious to combine Sword with Moinfar to teach the discussed limitation. Examiner use the Sword for merging two or more of the plurality of polyhedral cells (e.g., adjacent cells in the polyhedral grid). The broad term "sub-geometric element" is interpreted to include all types of geometric elements, including 3D polyhedral. Polyhedral cells are typically hexahedral, substantially orthogonal, arranged in a structured manner, and have been refined or coarsened. The present invention [0051] says each fracture segment can have a different geometric shape, including trilateral, quadrilateral, pentagons, and hexagon. A person of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., in reservoir modeling or computational geometry) would have a logical reason to combine these teachings. Moinfair describes fracture segments that belong together, and Sword provides a method for merging adjacent components based on a shared property, one would naturally consider using the Sword method to merge the segments from Moinfar. Thus, it is obvious to combine Sword with Moinfar that proposes the merger of the plurality of fracture segments.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-10 are directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claims: 11-19 are directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim: 20 is directed to manufacture that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim 1 recites
Step 2A-Prong 1
using at least one processor. processing the obtained digital data output by;
determining if the matrix grid data represents a two-dimensional (2D) grid or three-dimensional (3D) grid; producing a matrix grid representing an unstructured grid, wherein the matrix grid incorporates at least one 2D geometric element if the matrix grid data is determined to represent a 2D grid or at least one 3D geometric element if the matrix grid data is determined to represent a 3D grid; superimposing at least one fracture from the matrix grid data onto the matrix grid; respectively dividing the at least one 2D or 3D geometric element into 2D or 3D sub-elements in the matrix grid; creating control volumes using the sub-elements in the matrix grid. including at least one control volume associated with a fracture from the matrix grid data; dividing the at least one superimposed fracture into multiple fracture segments; (it is a mental process comprising of a series of mental steps. For example, a person would have been able to mentally observe the obtained data, such as in tabular form or by a visual representation of the obtained data, such as printed onto paper, and then mentally visualize, or draw, with pen and paper, their mental judgement/observation of a matrix grid cell, e.g. see instant figure 1A-1B, which shows a “a simple case with only three matrix cells and two fractures” (¶ 51 of the instant disclosure, and in this mental process a person would readily be able to draw a simple representation of the fractures in the drawing, such as by drawing straight lines to represent the fractures themselves), mentally observe the geometry of the fractures and matrix cells in the matrix grid such as to observe the geometric interactions (e.g. mentally observe a drawing such as shown in fig. 1A-B to observe that fracture 1 interacts with matrix cells, and fracture 2 only interacts with matrix cells, wherein the original fractures before they are made into cells are represented visually in the drawing such as by straight or dashed lines in the drawing), mentally judge, based on the prior observation, and then mentally judge/provide an opinion of the physical properties of each fracture cell, such as by associating a table of physical properties with each cell, and then mentally observe their final drawing to observe/identify geometric relationships between the fracture cells and between the fracture cells and matrix cells, e.g. observing that fracture cells 1 and 2 geometrically interact with each other. The process of dividing elements into sub-elements and creating control volumes is an iterative one that is guided by accuracy goals. This mirrors the mental process of refining an idea or a theory—starting with a rough concept and adding detail until a satisfactory level of understanding is achieved. The subsequent steps of creating sub-elements, building control volumes, and segmenting fractures are all parts of a logical, planned solution, similar to how a human mind breaks down a complex task. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
determine at least one transmissibility factor associated with one or more of the multiple fracture segments contained in one of the created control volumes, wherein if the one of the created control volumes contains a single fracture segment of the multiple fracture segments then determine the at least one transmissibility factor between the contained single fracture segment and the one of the created control volumes; wherein if the one of the created control volumes contains a plurality of fracture segments of the multiple fracture segments then merge the plurality of fracture segments in the sub-elements contained within the one of the created control volumes into one combined fracture segment and determine the at least one transmissibility factor between the combined fracture segment and the one of the created control volumes; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, the determining the transmissibility factors falls under the mathematical concept in view of instant specification provided by the mathematical equation and calculation)
creating a digital data set associated with the at least one determined transmissibility factor; (The process requires making judgments about which factors are relevant for transmissibility. For example, a person must select specific data points or calculate specific values to include in the dataset. These steps can be performed by a person using basic tools like a calculator and a spreadsheet. Organizing the determined factors into a dataset is an act of human intellect. Arranging data in rows and columns is a convention, and the mental act of doing so can be performed with pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Merely performing a mental task on a computer is not transformative.)
and generate a simulation of the subterranean region with the subterranean reservoir simulator using the determined transmissibility factor. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1, 10 and 20 recites the additional elements of obtaining a digital data output generated by a subterranean reservoir simulator, the data output representing the subterranean region and comprising matrix grid data incorporating fractures in the subterranean region which is a merely a data gathering step and inputting the created digital data set into the simulator which is merely a data inputting step and this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)], e.g. “all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output” [ibid]. The data representing the subterranean region to be modeled may be obtained by conventional means as known in the art, such as formation evaluation techniques, reservoir surveys, seismic exploration. The additional elements of “instructing the simulator to run a simulation of the subterranean region accounting for the at least one determined transmissibility factor” is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional elements of subterranean reservoir simulator (claim 1, 10 and 20) and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to perform functions in claim 10 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying instructions which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations in claim 20 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A system or method for simulating a subterranean region having fracture geometries do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, claim 1, 10 and 20 recites the additional elements of obtaining a digital data output generated by a subterranean reservoir simulator, the data output representing the subterranean region and comprising matrix grid data incorporating fractures in the subterranean region and inputting the created digital data set into the simulator which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data or inputting data), and fall under the insignificant pre-solution activity and recognized it as generic computer functions that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); The data representing the subterranean region to be modeled may be obtained by conventional means as known in the art, such as formation evaluation techniques, reservoir surveys, seismic exploration. The additional elements of “instructing the simulator to run a simulation of the subterranean region accounting for the at least one determined transmissibility factor” is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional elements of subterranean reservoir simulator (claim 1, 10 and 20) and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to perform functions in claim 10 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying instructions which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations in claim 20 are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. A system or method for simulating a subterranean region having fracture geometries do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 and 11 further recites wherein producing a matrix grid comprises applying embedded discrete fracture modeling in combination with an element-based finite-volume formulation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation, judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, the combination of the Embedded Discrete Fracture Model (EDFM) and an Element-based Finite-Volume (EbFV) formulation is a robust mathematical concept for simulating flow in complex fractured media, like subsurface reservoirs. It provides a rigorous framework for mass conservation and geometric flexibility, overcoming the limitations of simpler modeling approaches. So, it also falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract idea. Claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 3 and 12 further recites wherein the at least one 2D geometric element comprises a triangular element or quadrilateral element. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is further limiting the 2D geometric elements of claim 1 and is generally linking to a particular technological environment and does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 4 and 13 further recites wherein the at least one 3D geometric element comprises a tetrahedron, prism, hexahedron, or pyramid. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is further limiting the 3D geometric elements of claim 1 and is generally linking to a particular technological environment and does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 5 and 14 further recites wherein dividing the at least one 2D or 3D geometric element into 2D or 3D sub-elements comprises dividing the geometric element into several parts by connecting a centroid of the element to middle points of element edges. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 6 and 15 further recites wherein the at least one processor further processes the obtained digital data output by determining physical properties associated with the created control volumes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 7 and 16 further recites wherein creating control volumes comprises identifying the 2D or 3D sub-elements that share a vertex. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 8 and 17 further recites wherein the obtained digital data output represents an unstructured grid. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is further limiting the obtained digital data output of claim 1 and does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 18 further recites wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute an instruction to create control volumes in the matrix grid to represent fracture segments. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas but for the recitation of a generic computer component. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 9 and 19 further recites wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute an instruction to simulate fluid flow along fractures in the subterranean region in the matrix grid. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, the simulating fluid flow falls under the mathematical concept in view of instant specification provided by the mathematical equation and calculation. (Darcey law [0062]) The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moinfar et al. ("Development of an efficient embedded discrete fracture model for 3D compositional reservoir simulation in fractured reservoirs.", 2014), hereinafter Monteagudo et al. ("Control‐volume method for numerical simulation of two‐phase immiscible flow in two‐and three‐dimensional discrete‐fractured media." Water resources research 40.7 (2004)) and further in view of Sword, JR. et al. (PUB NO: US 20140136171 A1), hereinafter Sword.
Regarding Claim 1, 10 and 20
Moinfar teaches a computer implemented method or system for simulating a subterranean region having fracture geometries (see page 30-The embedded discrete fracture model developed in this research for simulating fractured reservoirs is implemented into GPAS.)
at least one processor configured to execute instructions to perform operations including to of claim 10: (see page 31-The EOS and chemical compositional modules of GPAS are developed under this framework and thus, multi-processor simulations are feasible using GPAS. The main features of the IPARS framework in conjunction with the compositional modules are memory allocation and management, domain decomposition, message passing between processors, and input/output processing. See also page 71)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying instructions which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations of claim 20 (see page 71- All simulations for this study were performed using Petros cluster, which is owned by the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering (CPGE) at The University of Texas at Austin. This 64-bit Linux cluster has 32 compute nodes where each node has 16 GB memory and 4 CPUs with the frequency of 2.73 GHz.)
obtaining a digital data output generated by a subterranean reservoir simulator, the data output representing the subterranean region and comprising matrix grid data incorporating fractures in the subterranean region;(See page 30-32 and fig 2.1-The Integrated Parallel Accurate Reservoir Simulation (IPARS) was developed as a framework for parallel reservoir simulation research. In order to maintain communication between different processors, a subgrid assigned to each processor is surrounded by a layer of grid elements that is shared with neighboring processors. The main features of the IPARS framework in conjunction with the compositional modules are memory allocation and management, domain decomposition, message passing between processors, and input/output processing. The framework allows each processor to collect the input data for the portion of the reservoir that is assigned to it. Furthermore, at the output times, data from all processors are collected by a master processor. The input of the pre-processing code is the description of the model reservoir including the reservoir dimensions, fracture network, location of wells, structured grid for the matrix domain, aperture and permeability of fractures, and porosity and permeability of matrix. The framework allows each processor to collect the input data for the portion of the reservoir that is assigned to it.)
determining if the matrix grid data represents two-dimensional (2D) grid or three-dimensional (3D) grid;(see fig 4.3- The matrix grid is 10×10×2 cells in the x, y, and z directions, respectively, with cell dimensions of 20×20×20 ft in all directions. See section 4.3.1-For illustration purposes, the example is a 2D reservoir containing 14 vertical fractures as shown in Figure 4.9a. Reservoir dimensions are 500×500×20 ft and Table 4.1 describes the location of fractures using two endpoints, (X1, Y1) and (X2, Y2). The matrix grid is 20×20×1, where the sizes of each grid block in the x, y, and z directions are 25, 25, and 20 ft, respectively. See page 60- We have developed a pre-processing code to provide the required data for fluidflow simulations in GPAS. The input of the pre-processing code is the description of the model reservoir including the reservoir dimensions, fracture network, location of wells, structured grid for the matrix domain, aperture and permeability of fractures, and porosity and permeability of matrix.)
producing a matrix grid representing unstructured grid;(see page 46- The EDFM approach borrows the dual-medium concept from conventional dual continuum models, but also incorporates the effect of each fracture explicitly. In this approach, computational fracture control volumes are not present in the vicinity of matrix grid blocks, but are defined in a separate computational domain. see page 61- Calculate the number of NNCs for each computational gridblock either in the matrix domain or in the fracture domain. See page 68- EDFM employs a structured grid to surmount challenges associated with unstructured gridding.)
wherein the matrix grid incorporates at least one 2D geometric element if the matrix grid data is determined to represent a 2D grid or at least one 3D geometric element if the matrix grid data is determined to represent a 3D grid; (see page 61- Calculate the number of NNCs for each computational gridblock either in the matrix domain or in the fracture domain, see section 4.2.1-Figure 4.2 shows possible intersections of an inclined fracture plane and a matrix gridblock, which can be a triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, or hexagon.)
superimposing at least one fracture from the matrix grid data onto the matrix grid; (see page 49- Figure 4.3 shows a simple two-layer model comprising two tilted fractures, inclined 60 and 75 degrees from the horizontal plane. Both fractures penetrate the entire height of the reservoir. The structured grid for the matrix is 10×10×2 cells in the x, y, and z directions, respectively, with cell dimensions of 20×20×20 feet in all directions. See also fig 4.4- Figure 4.4 specifies all gridblocks containing a segment of a fracture for both layers. Cells containing a segment of the black fracture are marked with black circles and those containing a segment of the red fracture are marked with red squares. In contrast to vertical fractures that cross similar gridblocks in different computational layers, inclined fractures may cross a different number of gridblocks in each layer, as shown in Figure 4.4. For the example under consideration, the black fracture penetrates 14 cells in the top computational layer while penetrating only 9 cells in the bottom one. Unlike the black fracture, the red fracture crosses more gridblocks in the bottom computational layer than in the top one.)
dividing the at least one superimposed fracture into multiple fracture segments; (See fig 4.4- Figure 4.4 specifies all gridblocks containing a segment of a fracture for both layers. Cells containing a segment of the black fracture are marked with black circles and those containing a segment of the red fracture are marked with red squares. In contrast to vertical fractures that cross similar gridblocks in different computational layers, inclined fractures may cross a different number of gridblocks in each layer, as shown in Figure 4.4. For the example under consideration, the black fracture penetrates 14 cells in the top computational layer while penetrating only 9 cells in the bottom one. Unlike the black fracture, the red fracture crosses more gridblocks in the bottom computational layer than in the top one)
determining at least one transmissibility factor associated with one or more of the multiple fracture segments contained in one of the created control volumes, (see page, 49, 58 and equation 4.7 and section 4.2.4-see fig 4.6 (a) Three types of non-neighboring connections are required in the computational domain. NNC type I NNC type II NNC type III. A fracture cell should be defined in the fracture domain corresponding to each grid block containing a segment of a fracture plane. We need to properly calculate all the transmissibility factors in the x, y, and z directions for fracture control volumes in a pre-processing code. These factors are then used in the reservoir simulator over the course of simulation. We use the same approach described for the NNC type III to compute the transmissibility between fracture cells)
wherein if the one of the created control volumes contains a single fracture segment of the multiple fracture segments then determining the at least one transmissibility factor between the contained single fracture segment and the one of the created control volumes; (see fig 4.6-Three types of non-neighboring connections are required in the computational domain. (a) When a fracture segment is embedded in a gridblock, there is a NNC between the fracture control volume and the matrix cell. see section 4.2.3.1 and page 55--The transmissibility factor (Aⁿⁿᶜ × kⁿⁿᶜ) / dⁿⁿᶜ for the three types of NNCs previously described must be calculated and saved for each NNC. For a NNC between matrix and fracture cells (Figure 4.6a), Aⁿⁿᶜ is the fracture surface area in the gridblock. Fluid transfer between the fracture and matrix gridblock takes place through this surface and an exact specification of the fracture-gridblock intersection is necessary to accurately calculate the area of this surface. The parameter kⁿⁿᶜ is taken as the harmonic average of the matrix and fracture permeabilities. Therefore, kⁿⁿᶜ is close to the matrix permeability in most cases where fracture permeability is significantly greater than matrix permeability.)
wherein if the one of the created control volumes contains a plurality of fracture segments of the multiple fracture segments (See fig 4.4- Figure 4.4 specifies all gridblocks containing a segment of a fracture for both layers. Cells containing a segment of the black fracture are marked with black circles and those containing a segment of the red fracture are marked with red squares. In contrast to vertical fractures that cross similar gridblocks in different computational layers, inclined fractures may cross a different number of gridblocks in each layer, as shown in Figure 4.4. For the example under consideration, the black fracture penetrates 14 cells in the top computational layer while penetrating only 9 cells in the bottom one. Unlike the black fracture, the red fracture crosses more gridblocks in the bottom computational layer than in the top one)
determining the at least one transmissibility factor between the (see fig 4.6-Three types of non-neighboring connections are required in the computational domain. (a) When a fracture segment is embedded in a gridblock, there is a NNC between the fracture control volume and the matrix cell. see section 4.2.3.1 and page 55--The transmissibility factor (Aⁿⁿᶜ × kⁿⁿᶜ) / dⁿⁿᶜ for the three types of NNCs previously described must be calculated and saved for each NNC. For a NNC between matrix and fracture cells (Figure 4.6a), Aⁿⁿᶜ is the fracture surface area in the gridblock. Fluid transfer between the fracture and matrix gridblock takes place through this surface and an exact specification of the fracture-gridblock intersection is necessary to accurately calculate the area of this surface. The parameter kⁿⁿᶜ is taken as the harmonic average of the matrix and fracture permeabilities. Therefore, kⁿⁿᶜ is close to the matrix permeability in most cases where fracture permeability is significantly greater than matrix permeability. Also see section 8.2.1-equation 8.1-8.3- In the coupled model, we consider a matrix gridblock and its corresponding continuum-fracture gridblock as a NNC pair.)
creating a digital data set associated with the at least one determined transmissibility factor; (see table 4.2 and 4.3)
inputting the created digital dataset into the subterranean reservoir simulator; (See page 30-31 We developed a pre-processing code to provide the required data for fluid flow simulations in GPAS (General Purpose Adaptive Simulator) using the EDFM approach. GPAS is a fully‐implicit parallel-processing reservoir simulator comprising two main modules, the equation-of-state (EOS) compositional module and the chemical compositional module. Subsequently, the parameters calculated in the pre-processing code include porosity, permeability, and depth of fracture control volumes, transmissibility between NNCs, transmissibility between adjacent fracture cells. See also page 58-We need to properly calculate all the transmissibility factors in the x, y, and z directions for fracture control volumes in a pre-processing code. These factors are then used in the reservoir simulator over the course of simulation)
instructing the simulator to run a simulation of the subterranean region accounting for the at least one determined transmissibility factor. (see page 30-31-Moreover, the computational framework of GPAS allows for parallel proc