DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-18 fall within category of process Each of claim 19 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); and claim20 is directed to a “A non-transitory computer readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
Regarding Claims 1-20
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claims 1 and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea of identifying a parameter of the formation.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method comprising:
measuring a changing concentration profile of a volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from a formation over a time interval, wherein the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within a wellbore;
generating a varying simulated concentration profile associated with the tracer solution in a simulated formation by modifying simulated formation parameters of the simulated formation;
comparing the varying simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation; and
identifying a parameter of the formation based on a comparison of the varying simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation..
The italicized limitations above represent mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “generating a varying simulated concentration profile [..]; comparing the varying simulated concentration profile [..];identifying a parameter of the formation [..]” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ measuring a changing concentration profile of a volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from a formation over a time interval, wherein the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within a wellbore” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “A system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic control system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claims contains additional elements that are, i.e. tracer solution, probes, processor, memory”, generic devices and solution component, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For Examples, claim 2-12: these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For Examples, claims 13 and 17: claims limitations are directed to mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
For Examples, claims 14-16 and 18: describes the elements amount to mere use of a generic components of tracer solution from the formation and operation system , which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d)
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satter et al. (US 4,278,128) in view of Gisolf et al. (US 2015/0361791)
Regarding Claims 1 and 19-20. Satter teaches a method comprising(abstract):
(A system comprising: one or more processors; and
at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to)(as cited in claims 19-20)(computer: col. 4, l.21)
measuring a changing concentration profile of a volume of tracer solution a volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from a formation over a time interval (fluids concentration profile: col. 2, l. 31-38; The output consists of oil, water and chemical production, fluid saturations, and chemical distributions in the reservoir at specified time intervals: col.6, l.29-44; fig. 1-4);
generating a varying simulated concentration profile associated with the tracer solution in a simulated formation by modifying simulated formation parameters of the simulated formation(simulated produced fluids concentration profile: col.2, l.39-46; figs. 1-4);
comparing the varying simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation (comparing simulated with actual measurement: col. 2, l. 42-61; figs. 1-4); and
identifying a parameter of the formation based on a comparison of the varying simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation(determining the amount of the chemical that is retained per unit volume: col.2, l.62-68).
Satter silent about wherein the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within a wellbore
However, Gisolf teaches wherein the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within a wellbore (to inject a tracer from a dedicated volume chamber (e.g., upper volume chamber 78C) into one formation interface between the formation 12 and the probe 62A. The tracer may be a known tracer fluid that is pre-filled into the upper volume chamber 78C at the surface. The upper pump 70A may be used to inject the tracer into the formation 12 while the lower pump 70B draws fluid into the downhole tool 50 from the formation 12 at the second probe 62B. The downhole tool 50 may be configured with sensors to determine and record a time and pressure that it takes for the tracer to move from one formation interface (e.g., probe 62A) to another (e.g., probe 62B): [0039], [0095], [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Satter, the tracer solution is injected into the formation through one or more probes of a plurality of probes that are set into the formation at a location within a wellbore, as taught by Gisolf, so as to control an operation of the downhole tool based on detection of the tracer.
Regarding Claim 2. Satter further teaches the parameter of the formation is a flow parameter of the formation (chemical that is retained per unit volume:col.2, l.62-68; Crm: col.5, l.31; formation water vp: fig. 4; permeability reduction effect :col. 4, l. 49-65).
Regarding Claim 4. Satter further teaches parameter of the formation is related to an affinity parameter of the tracer solution within the formation(chemical that is retained per unit volume:col.2, l.62-68; Crm: col.5, l.31; formation water vp: fig. 4; permeability reduction effect :col. 4, l. 49-65).
Regarding Claim 5. Satter further teaches affinity parameter is indicative of minerology information of the formation (salt concentration: col. 5, l. 44-46).
Regarding claim 9: Gisolf teaches the tracer solution is contained within a formation tester disposed at the location within the wellbore and the formation tester is configured to inject the tracer solution through the one or more probes into the formation(the downhole tool 50 in FIG. 11 may be used to perform a variety of different enhanced oil recovery functions. For example, using the downhole tool 50 of FIG. 11, it may be possible to inject a tracer from a dedicated volume chamber (e.g., upper volume chamber 78C) into one formation interface between the formation 12 and the probe 62: [0004],[0095], [0104]).
Regarding Claim 11. Gisolf teaches the tracer solution includes a plurality of different tracers([0039], [0095], [0104]).
Regarding Claim 12. Gisolf teaches the plurality of different tracers are injected into the formation through two or more probes of the plurality of probes that are set into the formation([0039]).
Regarding Claim 14: Gisolf teaches the plurality of probes are asymmetrically spaced apart from each other(62A, 62B: [0094]; fig. 11).
Regarding claim 16: Gisolf further teaches the plurality of probes include an injection probe for injecting the tracer solution in the formation (62A)and a production probe for withdrawing the volume of tracer solution from the formation (62B)and operations of the injection probe and the production probe are varied with respect to each other([0095]-[0096]).
Regarding Claim 18. Satter further teaches the tracer solution is mixed with formation fluid that is withdrawn from the formation over the time interval(col. 6, l.29-44).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satter et al. (US 4,278,128) in view of Gisolf et al. (US 2015/0361791) , further in view of Kuchuk et al. (US 20100126717)
Regarding Claim 3: The modified Satter does not explicitly teach the flow parameter is anisotropy.
However, Kuchuk teaches the flow parameter is anisotropy (By measuring the direction and rate of flow of a known injected fluid into the formation as a function of the injection volume and direction, determinations can be made about the formation anisotropy and permeability properties. For example, injecting known fluids into the formation: [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Satter, the flow parameter is anisotropy, as taught by Kuchuk, so as to observe fluid saturation changes in the formation is useful for the determination of formation properties.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satter et al. (US 4,278,128) in view of Gisolf et al. (US 2015/0361791) , further in view of Ramos et al. (US 6,016,191)
Regarding claim 6. The modified Satter does not explicitly teach the tracer solution includes a dye that is optically detectable in a volume of solution that is withdrawn from the formation after the tracer solution is injected into the formation.
However, Ramos teaches the tracer solution includes a dye that is optically detectable in a volume of solution that is withdrawn from the formation after the tracer solution is injected into the formation(abstract; col. 11, l. 29-col.12, l.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Satter, the tracer solution includes a dye that is optically detectable in a volume of solution that is withdrawn from the formation after the tracer solution is injected into the formation, as taught by Ramos, so as to detect the oil velocity when the oil is the continuous phase.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satter et al. (US 4,278,128) in view of Gisolf et al. (US 2015/0361791) , further in view of Eichmann et al. (US 2024/0392181).
Regarding claim 7. The modified Satter does not explicitly teach the tracer solution includes a tracer that is detectable through mass spectrometry in a volume of solution that is withdrawn from the formation after the tracer solution is injected into the formation.
However, Eichmann teaches the tracer solution includes a tracer that is detectable through mass spectrometry in a volume of solution that is withdrawn from the formation after the tracer solution is injected into the formation([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Satter the tracer solution includes a tracer that is detectable through mass spectrometry in a volume of solution that is withdrawn from the formation after the tracer solution is injected into the formation, as taught by Eichmann, so as to detect chemical tracing.
Regarding claim 8. The modified Satter does not explicitly teach the volume of tracer solution is captured for analysis at surface
However, Eichmann teaches the volume of tracer solution is captured for analysis at surface([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Satter t the volume of tracer solution is captured for analysis at surface, as taught by Eichmann, so as to detect chemical tracing.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satter et al. (US 4,278,128) in view of Gisolf et al. (US 2015/0361791) , further in view of Moen (US 20110024111)
Regarding claim 10: The modified Satter does not explicitly teach a rate at which the tracer solution is injected into the formation is varied.
However, Moen teaches a rate at which the tracer solution is injected into the formation is varied([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Satter a rate at which the tracer solution is injected into the formation is varied, as taught by Moen, so as to dispense a tracer material that is utilized in an oil industry to identify produced fluid..
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satter et al. (US 4,278,128) in view of Gisolf et al. (US 2015/0361791) , further in view of Harrigan et al (US20110198078)
Regarding claim 15: The modified Satter does not explicitly teach a rate at which the tracer solution is injected into the formation is varied separately from a rate at which tracer of the tracer solution is injected into the formation,
Harrigan teaches a rate at which the tracer solution is injected into the formation is varied separately from a rate at which tracer of the tracer solution is injected into the formation([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Satter a rate at which the tracer solution is injected into the formation is varied separately from a rate at which tracer of the tracer solution is injected into the formation, as taught by Harrigan, so as to determine petrophysical property values, e.g., permeability values, residual oil saturation, rock wettability, within a zone when injecting fluid into or withdrawing fluid from a subsurface formation.
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims 13 and 17, There is no prior art rejection over claims limitations, however there is 101 rejections. The limitations are regarding claim 13: normalizing changing concentration profiles of each of the plurality of different tracers based on a concentration profile of a reference tracer; and comparing normalized concentration profiles of the plurality of different tracers to the simulation concentration profile as part of comparing the simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation and regarding claim 17: numerically inverting the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation; and comparing the numerically inverted changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution to the simulated concentration profile as part of comparing the simulated concentration profile to the changing concentration profile of the volume of tracer solution that is withdrawn from the formation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Pop et al. (US 2015/0330218) disclose the interpretation of the formation response and/or fluid properties measured at block 520 may be performed using one or more of the simulators 302-308 of the simulation engine 240 and/or using the processing unit 250. For example, the simulation engine 240 and/or the processing unit 240 may process the mudcake parameters, the reservoir parameters, the tool response parameters and/or the data associated with the wellbore hydraulics model to generate simulation outputs. The simulation engine 240 and/or the processing unit 240 may also process the actual measurements (e.g., the formation and/or mudcake parameters) along with the sampling parameters to calculate, determine and/or predict a theoretical response to the sampling process
b) Hasan et al. (US 20230038447) disclose Dosing pump will be used to inject set volume (at least 5 mL/min) of liquid conservative tracers into along with the injection fluid. Dosing is done inline after the injection pumps. Due to the dynamic changes in the subsurface pressure conditions after the start of injection flow rate is expected to change over time to reflect the change in conditions.
c) Marya et al. (US 20230086904 ) disclose he tracers 68 are materials capable of producing a detectable, measurable, or observable change in at least a portion of the surface or volume in optical properties and/or electrical properties of the corrosion detection coating 62 upon exposure to one or more fluids, such as water, CO2, H2S, an acid, or a base. The tracers 68 may include one or more types of metal particles 74 and/or one or more types of inorganic particles 76, each of which may be a micron-sized particle, a nanoparticle, or a larger size particle.
d) Kul. et al. (US 20200032641) disclose A method, a system, tools for use by the system, and an interpretation method for injecting and detecting tracers and conducting flow characterizing of a petroleum well are disclosed. The method describes monitoring of travel time and slip velocity between two/three different phases (oil/water and possibly gas) in the well.
e)Gizz et al. ( US 20240035373) disclose the non-degradable portion may be selected based on size and composition so that it may be carried to the surface of the subterranean formation with a gaseous phase 414. At the surface, the non-degradable portion encapsulating the tracer may be collected, analyzed, and correlated to the treatment stage of the treatment zone in the target formation 416. The non-degradable portion including the tracer may be collected via any device known in the art such as an environmental air sampler or a gas-permeable membrane filter. Any method suitable for analysis of the tracer may be used to analyze the tracer including, but not limited to.
f) Verdin et al. (US 2023/0273180) disclose blue-dye tracer WBM invading a water-saturated formation. A blue-dye tracer component can be used in the mud-filtrate phase to differentiate the mud-filtrate from the formation water. For the compositional model, mud-filtrate and in-situ reservoir fluids are fully miscible. Similarly, a black oil model can be employed for reproducing a multiphase flow case with a WBM invading a hydrocarbon-saturated reservoir. Once the models are verified and benchmarked for their accuracy and reliability, seven reservoir simulation cases are constructed to obtain synthetic data to implement the FCD method: Base case: homogeneous isotropic reservoir, radial boundaries, vertical boundaries, thin laminations, mud-filtrate invasion, reservoir properties, and permeability anisotropy.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857