DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. This action is made in response to the claims filed August 29, 2023.
Claims 11 and 16-18 are objected to for informalities.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Chadwick.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Chadwick in view of Scanziani.
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 Objections
Claims 11 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16-18 recite, “The apparatus of claim 1,” however, claim 1 recites a method. It appears, based on the preceding claim 15 being an apparatus, that the Applicant intended the claims to depend from claim 15, rather than claim 1. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted to depend from claim 15.
Claim 11 recites, “The method of claim 1, further comprises.” This appears to be a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. It should be appreciated that the claims are all ineligible ab initio, as longstanding and conventional practices, as described in the following references of record: Hazlett (1995); Chaouche (1994); Hilpert (2001); de Gennes (1985); Kaufman (1987); Gostick; Chadwick; Scanziani; Blunt; Rabbani; Bonn; Zhao.
Independent Claims
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 15 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, which are abstract ideas.
based on the one or more pore elements, define a threshold capillary pressure for each of a set of inlet elements of the one or more pore elements; and (Mental Process – The determination of a threshold capillary pressure is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
invade the one or more pore elements with a fluid flow configuration, the fluid flow configuration based, at least in part, on the threshold capillary pressure. (Mental Process – The determination of the invasion simulation parameters is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper (see the steps described in the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0092]-[0093] that are performable without a computer), so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is a process that recites the method steps of claim 15, so it recites an abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 19 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, which are abstract ideas.
identify one or more surfaces for each of one or more pore elements; (Mental Process – The identification of a surface is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
define one or more spheres along the one or more surfaces; (Mental Process – Define a sphere along a surface (e.g., mathematically or otherwise) is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
generate voxel interfaces based, at least in part, on a set of locations where some of the one or more pore elements contain a portion of the one or more spheres; and (Mental Process – Define links between voxels and determined relative locations of spheres is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
refine the voxel interfaces to produce a fluid flow configuration capable of invading the one or more pore elements. (Mental Process – Using criteria to modify the links is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.)
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is a process that recites the method steps of claim 19, so it recites an abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 19.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Claim 15 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Claim 15 recites the following additional limitations:
An apparatus, comprising: a memory comprising executable instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
[…] voxel […]
These elements recite generic computing components/code at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
obtain an input image of a porous media sample;
extract a representative pore network from the input image by storing a voxel image for one or more pore elements;
Mere data gathering and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus.” Because the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is a process that recites the method steps of claim 15, so its features fail to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 19 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Claim 19 recites the following additional limitations:
An apparatus, comprising:
a memory comprising executable instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
[…] voxel […]
These elements recite generic computing components/code at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
obtain a voxel image representing a porous media sample, the voxel image having one or more pore elements representing the porous media sample;
(identify one or more surfaces for each of one or more pore elements;)
(define one or more spheres along the one or more surfaces;)
Mere data gathering and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus.” Because the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2. NOTE: The elements in parentheses are additionally and/or alternatively characterized as abstract ideas, as demonstrated above.)
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is a process that recites the method steps of claim 19, so its features fail to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as claim 19.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 fail to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Claim 15 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Claim 15 recites the following additional limitations:
An apparatus, comprising: a memory comprising executable instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
[…] voxel […]
These elements recite generic computing components/code at a high level of generality and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
obtain an input image of a porous media sample;
extract a representative pore network from the input image by storing a voxel image for one or more pore elements;
These limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means” (sensors) “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” Because the limitations are WURC and, as previously demonstrated, insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitations fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is a process that recites the method steps of claim 15, so its features fail to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as claim 15.
Claim 19 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Claim 19 recites the following additional limitations:
An apparatus, comprising:
a memory comprising executable instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
[…] voxel […]
These elements recite generic computing components/code at a high level of generality and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
obtain a voxel image representing a porous media sample, the voxel image having one or more pore elements representing the porous media sample;
(identify one or more surfaces for each of one or more pore elements;)
(define one or more spheres along the one or more surfaces;)
These limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means” (sensors) “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” Because the limitations are WURC and, as previously demonstrated, insignificant extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitations fail to combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is a process that recites the method steps of claim 19, so its features fail to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as claim 19.
The additional limitations of claims 1, 15, and 19 fail to combine with the other elements of their respective claims to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims fail to provide any additional limitations that would confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
NOTE: For all of the dependent claims, the parameters the data represents merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, all recited computing elements or the use thereof are recited at a high level of generality and represent generic computing processes, so, under MPEP 2106.05(f), these fail to confer eligibility.
Claims 2 and 16
outputting a set of results based on the invasion, the set of results including at least one of the representative pore network, characteristics of the representative pore network, the fluid flow configuration, and characteristics of the fluid flow configuration.
This is post-solution extra-solution activity (e.g., similar to MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus”) and WURC (e.g., similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”), so the limitation fails to confer eligibility.
Also, outputting, in its broadest sense, includes transmitting or displaying the data, which are considered generic computing operations recited at a high level that fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Should it be found otherwise, these merely characterize what the data represent and merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of technology, and under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 2 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same features as claim 2, so it fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 16 are ineligible.
Claims 3 and 17
wherein invading the one or more pore elements with the fluid flow configuration further comprises: updating a fluid pressure to a minimum threshold capillary pressure value; and updating the fluid configuration for each of the one or more pore elements, the fluid configuration for each of the one or more pore elements capable of invading the one or more pore elements at the fluid pressure.
These features are recited broadly enough to include a simulation that can be conducted by mathematical operations, so it is practically performable in the mind, or with the aid of pen and paper, an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Further, this is a longstanding practice and WURC, as demonstrated in the evidentiary references of record listed at the beginning of this section.
Claim 3 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same features as claim 3, so it fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons.
Claims 3 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 4, 14, and 18
wherein the porous media sample is a rock sample.
These features merely characterize what the data represent and merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of technology, and under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Also, this data is an element of the mere data gathering of claim 1.
Claim 4 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claims 18 and 14 recite substantially the same features as claim 4, so they fail to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons.
Claims 4, 14, and 18 are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 20
further comprising outputting at least one of the voxel interfaces and the fluid configuration.
This is post-solution extra-solution activity (e.g., similar to MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus”) and WURC (e.g., similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”), so the limitation fails to confer eligibility.
Also, outputting, in its broadest sense, includes transmitting or displaying the data, which are considered generic computing operations recited at a high level that fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Should it be found otherwise, these merely characterize what the data represent and merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of technology, and under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 6 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same features as claim 6, so it fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons.
Claims 20 and 6 are ineligible.
Claim 7
evaluating a fluid pressure value for the voxel image; and based on the evaluating, computing assigned values for one or more meniscus radii for the voxel image.
Evaluating a fluid pressure and using the evaluated pressure to determine voxel meniscus radii are practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 7 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8
wherein defining the one or more spheres comprises: defining the one or more spheres based, at least in part, on the assigned values and one or more contact angles.
Defining spheres based on angles and other values is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 8 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9
removing a portion of the one or more sphere from the one or more surfaces based on positions of each of the one or more spheres.
Removing portions of elements that overlap in rendering is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Should it be found otherwise, the determination of how much of the sphere to remove is an abstract idea for the reason discussed in the last point, and outputting the result is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for at least the same reasons as the output steps addressed in previous claims.
Claim 10 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11
further comprises removing a portion of voxels from the voxel interfaces, the portion of the voxels disconnected from a defining voxel of the voxel interface.
Removing voxels in rendering is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Should it be found otherwise, the determination of which voxels to remove is an abstract idea for the reason discussed in the last point, and outputting the result is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for at least the same reasons as the output steps addressed in previous claims.
Claim 11 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12
wherein refining the voxel interfaces comprises at least one of: removing a first portion of the voxel interfaces, the first portion being shared between at least two of the one or more pore elements; removing a second portion of the voxel interfaces, the second portion intersecting with the one or more surfaces in a substantially invalid manner; removing a third portion of the voxel interfaces, the third portion being incompatible with the fluid configuration; and removing a fourth portion of the voxel interfaces, the forth portion of voxel interfaces intersecting with any of the voxel interfaces.
Removing voxels in rendering is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Should it be found otherwise, the determination of which voxels to remove is an abstract idea for the reason discussed in the last point, and outputting the result is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for at least the same reasons as the output steps addressed in previous claims.
Claim 12 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13
wherein producing a fluid flow configuration capable of invading the one or more pore elements comprises: testing the voxel interfaces to generate a thermodynamically favorable configuration of the voxel interfaces; and constructing the fluid flow configuration based, at least in part, on the thermodynamically favorable configuration of the voxel interfaces.
These are determinations that are practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 13 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B.
Claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20: Chadwick
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL: “Incorporating the Effect of Gravity Into Image-Based Drainage Simulations on Volumetric Images of Porous Media” by Chadwick et al. (Chadwick).
Claims 1 and 15
Regarding claim 15, Chadwick teaches:
An apparatus, comprising: a memory comprising executable instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: (Chadwick Abstract “The presented algorithm utilizes only basic image processing tools and offers the same computational advantage as other image-based sphere insertion methods.” See also the computer-generated images in Figures 1-12. Also See Appendix A, which includes computer code for execution on a computer. – A computer with a processor and memory is used to conduct the methods.)
obtain an input image of a porous media sample; (Chadwick Page 5, 3.2 Image Generation “The Python package, PoreSpy (J. Gostick et al., 2019) was used to generate 2D and 3D porous material images with specified properties by stochastically generating overlapping disks (2D) or spheres (3D), as well as non-overlapping spheres to compare to the micromodel experiments of Ayaz et al. (2020).” – Images of porous media are generated and provided. )
extract a representative pore network from the input image by storing a voxel image for one or more pore elements; (Chadwick Page 5, 3.2 Image Generation “For 3D, a 3 cm wide by 3 cm deep by 8 cm tall domain (150 px by 150 px by 400 px) was generated with solid spheres of diameter 1 mm to create a porous media with a target porosity of 65% and a resolution of Lvx = .2 mm/px. The generated images for the 2D and 3D example are shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. For comparison to Ayaz et al. (2020), a 3D image of 2,900 by 2,000 by 20 voxels was generated and filled with non-overlapping spheres of 20 voxel diameter (equivalent to the domain thickness) to the maximum solid volume fraction using the random sequential algorithm described by Torquato (1991). Note their images of invading phase configurations, and the results to be shown below, are 2D projections of this thin 3D domain.” – A representative pore network is extracted from the input image by storing a voxel image for one or more pore elements.)
based on the one or more pore elements, define a threshold capillary pressure for each of a set of inlet elements of the one or more pore elements; and (Chadwick Page 3, First Paragraph “This erosion step leaves an image such as the one displayed in Figure 1c with seed voxels indicating places where the capillary pressure is less than or equal to the inlet pressure. Crucially, disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed after the erosion (Figure 1d), but prior to the dilation, to prevent premature invasion (Mohammadmoradi & Kantzas, 2016). An alternative approach is to use a distance transform (J. T. Gostick, 2013) which can also be parallelized (Silversmith, 2021).” – Based on the one or more pore elements, a threshold capillary pressure
invade the one or more pore elements with a fluid flow configuration, the fluid flow configuration based, as least in part, on the threshold capillary pressure. (Chadwick Page 3, Only Paragraph “The fact that voxels farther from the inlet are harder to invade is expressed in Equation 3 since not only must the required capillary pressure be reached to invade a given pore, but the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid at that location must also be overcome. The proposed algorithm is illustrated in Figure 2 and demonstrated for the case with and without gravity. The capillary pressure, Pc calculated at each non-solid pixel is shown in Figure 2a. The corrected pressure for gravity, P’c is shown in Figure 2b. Notably, the colors fade from lower to higher values in different patterns. In the subsequent figures, all voxels which can be invaded by the fluid at a given pressure are found by a threshold, Pc <𝑃in for the case without gravity and P’c<Pin for the case with gravity, yield a set of seed voxels (shown in Figures 2c and 2d). Seed voxels that are not connected to the inlet reservoir are trimmed to avoid invalid invasions as shown in Figures 2e and 2f. Incidentally, for this particular domain, no seed voxels needed to be trimmed from the case with gravity, which is indicative of the compact invasion front that is characteristic of gravity stabilized displacements.” – invade the one or more pore elements with a fluid flow configuration, the fluid flow configuration based, at least in part, on the threshold capillary.)
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method of claim 15 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 15.
Claims 5 and 19
Regarding claim 19, Chadwick teaches:
An apparatus, comprising: a memory comprising executable instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: : (Chadwick Abstract “The presented algorithm utilizes only basic image processing tools and offers the same computational advantage as other image-based sphere insertion methods.” See also the computer-generated images in Figures 1-12. Also See Appendix A, which includes computer code for execution on a computer. – A computer with a processor and memory is used to conduct the methods.)
obtain a voxel image representing a porous media sample, the voxel image having one or more pore elements representing the porous media sample; (Chadwick Page 5, 3.2 Image Generation “The Python package, PoreSpy (J. Gostick et al., 2019) was used to generate 2D and 3D porous material images with specified properties by stochastically generating overlapping disks (2D) or spheres (3D), as well as non-overlapping spheres to compare to the micromodel experiments of Ayaz et al. (2020).” – Images of porous media are generated and provided. )
identify one or more surfaces for each of one or more pore elements; define one or more spheres along the one or more surfaces; (Chadwick Pages 2-3, 2.2 Standard IBSI Methods “The original proposal by Hazlett (1995) involved the direct search for locations where spheres of a certain size could fit. The problem with that approach is that some incorrect invasion occurred when spheres touched each other through throats that otherwise had not been penetrated by invading fluid.” – Spheres are defined along identified surfaces.)
generate voxel interfaces based, at least in part, on a set of locations where some of the one or more pore elements contain a portion of the one or more spheres; and (Chadwick Pages 2-3, 2.2 Standard IBSI Methods “The approach was formalized by Hilpert and Miller by using MIO (Hilpert & Miller, 2001), which is a two-step process consisting of erosion of the foreground (pore space) followed by dilation of the surviving pixels (herein called seed pixels [or voxels] since they act as the seed points for subsequent sphere insertion). Erosion was performed using a spherical structuring element with a diameter corresponding to the applied capillary pressure (herein referred to as the inlet This erosion step leaves an image such as the one displayed in Figure 1c with seed voxels indicating places where the capillary pressure is less than or equal to the inlet pressure. Crucially, disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed after the erosion (Figure 1d), but prior to the dilation, to prevent premature invasion (Mohammadmoradi & Kantzas, 2016). An alternative approach is to use a distance transform (J. T. Gostick, 2013) which can also be parallelized (Silversmith, 2021). In this approach, the initial erosion step is accomplished by obtaining a distance transform (Figure 1b) of the pore space (foreground), then identifying all voxels within R of the solid (background) resulting in a set of seed voxels similar to Figure 1c.“ – Voxel interfaces with the spheres in the modeled pores are generated based on a set of locations where some of the pores contain at least a portion of a sphere.)
refine the voxel interfaces to produce a fluid flow configuration capable of invading the one or more pore elements. (Chadwick Pages 2-3, 2.2 Standard IBSI Methods “Disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed at this point as in Figure 1d. The dilation step can be achieved by performing a second distance transform relative to the surviving seed voxels and repeating the threshold or by performing a morphological dilation. The first distance transform can be reused for all sizes, so fluid invasions at increasingly smaller radii (higher pressures) only requires computing one distance transform or one dilation per step.” – The voxel interfaces are refined by voxel trimming and morphological dilation to render a flow configuration capable of invading the one or more pore elements.)
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 teaches the method executed by the apparatus of claim 19, so claim 5 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 19.
Claims 2 and 16
Regarding claim 16, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 15, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to output a set of results based on the invasion, the set of results including at least one of the representative pore network, characteristics of the representative pore network, the fluid flow configuration, and characteristics of the fluid flow configuration. (Chadwick Page 6, 4 Results “The proposed IBSI algorithm was validated by simulating capillary rise in cylindrical tubes of varying widths and comparing the results with theoretical values (Section 4.1). After validation, 2D and 3D examples of porous media were generated and subjected to the IBSI algorithm for drainage with and without gravity effects included to demonstrate the impact of considering gravity in the IBSI method. A detailed investigation of the height of the two-phase zone was conducted and found to agree with theory (Section 4.2). A comparison to suitable experimental data as also conducted and found in favorable agreement (Section 4.3). Finally, the error due to neglecting gravity in drainage simulations was estimated based on the domain height and Bond number (Section 4.5).” – A set of results is output based on the invasion, the set of results including a 3D example of the porous media (representative pore network, and characteristics of the representative flow network) subjected to the IBSI algorithm for drainage with and without gravity effects (fluid flow configuration and characteristics of the fluid flow configuration).)
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method of claim 16 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 16.
Claims 3 and 17
Regarding claim 17, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 15, and further teaches:
wherein invading the one or more pore elements with the fluid flow configuration further comprises: updating a fluid pressure to a minimum threshold capillary pressure value; and (Chadwick Page 8, Second Paragraph “Ayaz et al. (2020) report the pressure difference between the invading phase (which is constant and equal to the atmospheric pressure, or PG = 0𝑃a gauge pressure) and the liquid phase pressure measured at the bottom of their setup, so P’C = PG – PL,outlet . At the start of the experiment, PL,outlet is high due to the large effect of Δ𝜌gh acting on the water column, resulting in a highly negative P’C As air invaded into the domain from the top (actually, water was withdrawn from the bottom to the same effect), the liquid front receded toward the outlet resulting in a lower value of Δ𝜌gh. Simultaneously, the curvature of the air-water interface changes to accommodate the capillary equilibrium in the invaded pores. These two effects combine to control the measured PL,outlet and hence the observed P’C. Eventually, the liquid water pressure must become negative to apply sufficient suction to the water to remove it from small pores, resulting in a positive value of P’C. These results can be compared directly to the present simulations since a negative value of Δ𝜌 was used.”) – The pressure eventually drops to a minimum level where suction is required to oppose the capillary pressure and remove the remaining water.)
updating the fluid configuration for each of the one or more pore elements, the fluid configuration for each of the one or more pore elements capable of invading the one or more pore elements at the fluid pressure. (Chadwick Page 8, Second Paragraph “Eventually, the liquid water pressure must become negative to apply sufficient suction to the water to remove it from small pores, resulting in a positive value of P’C. These results can be compared directly to the present simulations since a negative value of Δ𝜌 was used. The voxel values in the starting image contain the capillary entry pressure plus the local Δ𝜌gh as described by Equation 3, so the values near the top of the image contain the negative values. The invasion of air proceeds by entering the most easily invadable regions first, corresponding to the most negative voxels. The impact of increasing B0 on the pseudo-capillary curves follows the trends observed by Ayaz et al. (2020), with both the slope and the amount of residual defending phase increasing.” – The fluid configuration is updated to account for the subsequent invasion of air into susceptible voxels representing the pores.)
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the method of claim 17 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Claims 4, 14, and 18
Regarding claim 18, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 15, and further teaches:
wherein the porous media sample is a rock sample. (Chadwick Page 1, I. Introduction “Simulations of two-phase flow in porous media inform a wide range of applications in fields as diverse as groundwater remediation, geologic storage of carbon dioxide, enhanced oil recovery, and electrochemistry (Hilpert & Miller, 2001; Schulz et al., 2007; Shikhov & Arns, 2015; Weishaupt et al., 2019).” – These porous geologic samples include rocks.)
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method of claim 18 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 14, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 5 and further teaches as demonstrated with respect to claim 4, the features of claim 14, so claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 4 and 5.
Claims 6 and 20
Regarding claim 20, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 19 and further teaches:
further comprising outputting at least one of the voxel interfaces and the fluid configuration. (Chadwick Page 5, FIG. 7 (shown below) – The voxel interfaces and fluid configuration are output.)
PNG
media_image1.png
1662
1558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method of claim 20 and is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 20.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 5 and further teaches:
further comprising: evaluating a fluid pressure value for the voxel image; and based on the evaluating, computing assigned values for one or more meniscus radii for the voxel image. (Chadwick Page 6, 4.1 Validation via Capillary Tube Modeling “To test the accuracy of the proposed method, an image of variously sized capillary tubes was generated, and the results were compared against theoretical meniscus heights calculated via the Young-Laplace equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 shows the results of this validation using capillary tubes from 1 to 10 mm in diameter with heights all equal to 55 mm at an image resolution of LVX = 0.1 𝑚𝑚/px. The inlet pressure was incrementally increased from 50 to 500 Pa and the simulated height was recorded. The theoretical height of the meniscus was calculated via Equation 4. A comparison of the simulated height of the meniscus against the theoretical height of the meniscus is shown in Figure 4. The simulated results demonstrate close agreement with the theoretical values.” – The fluid pressure is evaluated for the voxel image and, based on that evaluation, the meniscus radii for the voxel image are computed.)
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 7 and further teaches:
wherein defining the one or more spheres comprises: defining the one or more spheres based, at least in part, on the assigned values and one or more contact angles. (Chadwick Page 3, 2.1 Gravity Effects in Porous Media “Gravity forces are comparable in magnitude to capillary forces on length scales 1 ∼ Δ𝜌g/P0C, where Δ𝜌 is the difference in densities between the two fluids, g is the acceleration due to gravity and P0C is a characteristic capillary pressure, the magnitude of which is related to a pore or particle size R as P0C ∼ 𝜎/𝑅 , where 𝜎 is the surface tension. At the pore scale, the ratio between gravity and capillary forces is measured by a dimensionless Bond number given by Equation 1” Page 5, First Paragraph “The size of the inserted spheres must be corrected to account for the local hydrostatic pressure […] This can be accomplished by inserting spheres based on the radius of the true distance transform at each location, as illustrated in Figure 2f. In other words, the hydrostatic pressure gradient alters which voxels are invadable and identified as seed voxels, but the sphere insertion uses the original value of the distance transform at each location to ensure that the invading fluid completely fills space.” Page 7, First Paragraph “The absolute error between the theoretical and simulated meniscus heights as well as the image resolution was normalized to the tube diameter to provide a dimensionless resolution and absolute error. […] The resolution shown corresponds to the inverse of the tube diameter in pixels. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the proposed algorithm accurately predicts the impact of gravity on the height of capillary rise, with only the image resolution limiting the accuracy.” Page 7, 4.3 Comparison to Micromodel Experiments “The effect of gravity was varied by tilting the model at increasing angles relative to the horizontal plane (i.e., 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60°). Their micromodel consisted of ∼1 mm glass beads between glass plates.” Page 6, 4.1 Validation via Capillary Tube Modeling “To test the accuracy of the proposed method, an image of variously sized capillary tubes was generated, and the results were compared against theoretical meniscus heights calculated via the Young-Laplace equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- The defining of the spheres is based on the pressure and related to the contact angles and meniscus radius by the Young-Laplace equation.)
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 5 and further teaches:
further comprising removing a portion of the one or more sphere from the one or more surfaces based on positions of each of the one or more spheres. (Chadwick Page 3, First Paragraph “This erosion step leaves an image such as the one displayed in Figure 1c with seed voxels indicating places where the capillary pressure is less than or equal to the inlet pressure. Crucially, disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed after the erosion (Figure 1d), but prior to the dilation, to prevent premature invasion (Mohammadmoradi & Kantzas, 2016). An alternative approach is to use a distance transform (J. T. Gostick, 2013) which can also be parallelized (Silversmith, 2021). In this approach, the initial erosion step is accomplished by obtaining a distance transform (Figure 1b) of the pore space (foreground), then identifying all voxels within R of the solid (background) resulting in a set of seed voxels similar to Figure 1c. Disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed at this point as in Figure 1d.” – Portions of spheres are removed from surfaces based on the positions of the spheres.)
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 9 and further teaches:
wherein the positions of each of the one or more spheres are substantially similar and capable of representing an invalid fluid configuration. (Chadwick page 4, Last Paragraph “Seed voxels that are not connected to the inlet reservoir are trimmed to avoid invalid invasions as shown in Figures 2e and 2f.” – Positions of the one or more spheres can be similar, representing an invalid fluid configuration correctable by trimming.)
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 5 and further teaches:
further comprises removing a portion of voxels from the voxel interfaces, the portion of the voxels disconnected from a defining voxel of the voxel interface. (Chadwick Page “Seed voxels that are not connected to the inlet reservoir are trimmed to avoid invalid invasions as shown in Figures 2e and 2f.” – Voxels disconnected from a defining voxel of the voxel interface are removed from voxel interfaces.)
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 5 and further teaches:
removing a first portion of the voxel interfaces, the first portion being shared between at least two of the one or more pore elements; (Chadwick Page 3, First Paragraph “In this approach, the initial erosion step is accomplished by obtaining a distance transform (Figure 1b) of the pore space (foreground), then identifying all voxels within R of the solid (background) resulting in a set of seed voxels similar to Figure 1c. Disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed at this point as in Figure 1d.” – This removes voxel interfaces shared between two pore elements based on the distance transform.)
removing a second portion of the voxel interfaces, the second portion intersecting with the one or more surfaces in a substantially invalid manner; (Chadwick Page 3, First Paragraph “In this approach, the initial erosion step is accomplished by obtaining a distance transform (Figure 1b) of the pore space (foreground), then identifying all voxels within R of the solid (background) resulting in a set of seed voxels similar to Figure 1c. Disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed at this point as in Figure 1d.” – This removes voxel interfaces that invalidly intersect with surfaces based on the distance transform.)
removing a third portion of the voxel interfaces, the third portion being incompatible with the fluid configuration; and (Chadwick Page “Seed voxels that are not connected to the inlet reservoir are trimmed to avoid invalid invasions as shown in Figures 2e and 2f.” – Voxels incompatible with the fluid configuration are removed.)
removing a fourth portion of the voxel interfaces, the forth portion of voxel interfaces intersecting with any of the voxel interfaces. (Chadwick Page 3, First Paragraph “In this approach, the initial erosion step is accomplished by obtaining a distance transform (Figure 1b) of the pore space (foreground), then identifying all voxels within R of the solid (background) resulting in a set of seed voxels similar to Figure 1c. Disconnected seed voxels can be trimmed at this point as in Figure 1d.” – This removes voxel interfaces that intersect/overlap with other voxel interfaces based on the distance transform.)
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) 13: Chadwick and Scanziani
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over NPL: “Incorporating the Effect of Gravity Into Image-Based Drainage Simulations on Volumetric Images of Porous Media” by Chadwick et al. (Chadwick) in view of NPL: “Dynamics of fluid displacement in mixed-wet porous media” by Scanziani et al. (Scanziani).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Chadwick teaches the features of claim 5, but does not appear to explicitly teach, but Chadwick in view of Scanziani teaches:
wherein producing a fluid flow configuration capable of invading the one or more pore elements comprises: testing the voxel interfaces to generate a thermodynamically favorable configuration of the voxel interfaces; and constructing the fluid flow configuration based, at least in part, on the thermodynamically favorable configuration of the voxel interfaces. (Scanziani Abstract “We identify a distinct two-phase flow invasion pattern in a mixed-wet porous medium. Time-resolved high resolution synchrotron X-ray imaging is used to study the invasion of water through a small rock sample filled with oil, characterized by a wide non-uniform distribution of local contact angles both above and below 90◦. The water advances in a connected front, but throats are not invaded in decreasing order of size, as predicted by invasion percolation theory for uniformly hydrophobic systems. Instead, we observe pinning of the three-phase contact between the fluids and the solid, manifested as contact angle hysteresis, which prevents snap-off and interface retraction. In the absence of viscous dissipation, we use an energy balance to find an effective, thermodynamic, contact angle for displacement and show that this angle increases during the displacement. Displacement occurs when the local contact angles overcome the advancing contact angles at a pinned interface: it is wettability which controls the filling sequence. The product of the principal interfacial curvatures, the Gaussian curvature, is negative, implying well connected phases which is consistent with pinning at the contact line while providing a topological explanation for the high displacement efficiencies in mixed-wet media” – The reference determines contact angle to better thermodynamically model the fluid flow configuration.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the generic fluid invasion of Chadwick by the specific fluid invasion parameters of Scanziani because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the aim of Chadwick to effectively simulate drainage as a key to studying multiphase flow and transport, to look to Scanziani, which teaches a thermodynamic contact angle determination that is crucial to increase predictive abilities of pore network models that simulate flow. (Chadwick Abstract “Simulating drainage in volumetric images of porous materials is a key technique for studying multiphase flow and transport.”; Scanziani Page 13, Conclusion “We observe that the movement of water in the initially oil-filled medium is limited by interface pinning, responsible for contact angle hysteresis. This prevents interface recession and snap-off during the displacement. Water invasion does not happen in decreasing order of throat size, meaning that other parameters must control the filling sequence. The thermodynamic contact angle, which encapsulates an energy balance for pore invasion, increases until breakthrough, showing that it constrains pore filling in mixed-wet media. This new finding will be crucial for increasing the predictive abilities of pore-network models which simulate the flow in such mixed-wet porous media.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights