DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 3/13/2023. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of WIPO Patent Application PCT/US2021/050008 filed on 09/13/2021, which claims priority to US Provisional Patent Application 63/077,489 filed on 09/11/2020, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 03/13/2023, 03/29/2023, and 3/31/2023 has been reviewed and considered.
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, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention .
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including:
“receiving sensor data” (e.g., mental process);
“using at least an infinite acting model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“determining a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 19 recites abstract limitations including:
“receive sensor data” (e.g., mental process);
“using at least an infinite acting model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“determine a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 20 recites abstract limitations including:
“receive sensor data” (e.g., mental process);
“using at least an infinite acting model” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“determine a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as “using… an infinite acting model” and “determining a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation” constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. The action of “receiving sensor data” is a mental process insofar as a human mind is capable of receiving data in the manner as recited in the claim (e.g., reading data presented on a display).
For example, the MPEP states the following regarding mental processes:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
For example, the MPEP states the following regarding mathematical calculations:
“[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. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C).
Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claims 1, 19, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
“one or more downhole tool pressure gauges” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a borehole in a geologic formation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a fluid operation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use); and
“a reservoir” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use).
Claim 19 recites the additional element of:
“a processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to “apply it”);
“memory accessible to the processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to “apply it”);
“one or more downhole tool pressure gauges” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a borehole in a geologic formation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a fluid operation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use); and
“a reservoir” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use).
Claim 20 recites the additional element of:
“one or more computer-readable storage media” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to “apply it”);
“one or more downhole tool pressure gauges” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a borehole in a geologic formation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a fluid operation” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use); and
“a reservoir” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use).
The above identified limitations of claims 1, 19, and 20 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, claims 1, 19, and 20 recite the additional elements of “one or more downhole tool pressure gauges”; “a borehole in a geologic formation”; “a fluid operation”; and “a reservoir.” The foregoing limitations, which are recited at a high level of generality, are merely directed to a field of use and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. With respect to field of use limitations, the MPEP states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, claims 1, 19, and 20 do not recite any additional elements which function to integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application or add significantly more than the recited abstract ideas.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 2 further describe the abstract idea of claim 1 by further defining an output of the abstract idea (e.g., the output corresponds to time). However, providing more specific details regarding a determination made in an abstract idea is still encompassed by the abstract idea. For example, the outcome of a determination is still part of the mental process and/or mathematical concept. Accordingly claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea and does not provide for a practical application of the abstract limitations identified in claim 1.
The limitations of claim 3 are directed to a field of use (e.g., a fluid operation) in which the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 are utilized. The field of use is recited at a high level of generality and merely functions to link the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. With respect to such limitations the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly claim 3 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because claim 3 is merely indicative of the field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied.
The limitations of claim 4 are directed to a field of use (e.g., features of a geologic formation and a borehole) in which the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 are utilized. The field of use is recited at a high level of generality and merely functions to link the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. With respect to such limitations the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly claim 4 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because claim 4 is merely indicative of the field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied.
The limitations of claim 5 further describe how the environment in which the abstract idea is applied impacts the sensor data which is directed to an additional element further directed to either a field of use or extra-solution activity. With respect to field of use limitations, the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, if viewed as a field of use limitation, the limitations of claim 5 do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. Furthermore, with respect to extra-solution activity the MPEP states: “[t]he term ‘extra-solution activity’ can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent… As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP further states “[i]f, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.” (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In view of the foregoing, Examiner notes that sensor data that is capable of identifying changes in a formation (e.g., geological changes) is a concept well-known in the art of hydrocarbon wellbore testing thereby rendering the limitation as insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, Chen et al. (US 11156741 B2) teaches “In order to optimize the performance of subterranean operations, it is often beneficial to determine various formation characteristics such as, for example, pressure and/or permeability. A formation tester may be utilized to determine formation characteristics… Formation fluid may then be drawn by the formation tester, and the transient pressure response of the formation may be monitored… The obtained transient pressure response may then be analyzed to determine various characteristics of the formation of interest.” (Chen, Col 1, Lines 25—48). Accordingly, when considered from the perspective of an extra-solution activity classification, the limitations of claim 5 do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations constitute material which is well-understood, routine, and/or conventional.
Similar to claim 5, the limitations of claim 6 recite an additional element; however, the limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity including a build up period and a draw down period. Such limitations constitute well-understood activity. For example, Chen et al. (US 11156741 B2), which was also referenced with respect to claim 5, states “[t]he formation tester is typically lowered into a borehole traversing a formation of interest… Formation fluid may then be drawn by the formation tester, and the transient pressure response of the formation may be monitored… A first segment 102 of the transient pressure response shows the pressure drawdown. This is the differential pressure that drives fluids from the formation into the wellbore. A second segment 104 of the transient pressure response represents the pressure buildup which is an indication of a rise in pressure as a function of time observed after a well is shut in or after the production rate is reduced. Finally, a third segment 106 of the transient pressure response represents the stabilized pressure. The obtained transient pressure response may then be analyzed to determine various characteristics of the formation of interest.” (Chen, Col. 1, Lines 25—48). Accordingly, when considered from the perspective of an extra-solution activity classification, the limitations of claim 6 do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations constitute material which is well-understood, routine, and/or conventional.
Claim 7 recites limitations directed to receiving data (e.g., formation properties and uncertainty information) which are claimed in a manner such that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations constitute mental processes. For example, the claim does not recite any limitations pertaining to how the data is received such that the limitations require a more narrow reading than receiving data by observing or viewing the data (e.g., mental process of gathering data with eyes). Accordingly the limitations of claim 7 are directed to an abstract idea constituting a mental process (e.g., see MPEP citations related to mental processes as provided with respect to claim 1), and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions identified in claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9 function to further define the data received in claim 7 by source or content. Such limitations constitute additional elements; however, selecting a dataset for analysis based on source, data type, or content amounts to court identified insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly claims 8 and 9 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because the recited limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 10 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea insofar as using a model (e.g., an infinite acting model; noise model; and pressure gauge model) to make determinations constitutes a mental process, a mathematical concept, or a combination thereof (e.g., see MPEP citation provided above). Accordingly claims 10 and 11 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because the limitations of claims 10 and 11 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 12 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea constituting a mental process, a mathematical concept, or combinations thereof where claims 12 and 13 are directed to further defining the “determining” step recited in claim 1. Accordingly claims 12 and 13 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because the limitations of claims 12 and 13 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea constituting a mental process, a mathematical concept, or combinations thereof. For example, “generating a derivative noise envelope using a Bourdet derivative” is directed to a mental process and/or a mathematical concept. Accordingly claim 14 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because the limitations of claim 14 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
The limitations of claims 15 and 16 further describe the abstract idea of claim 1 by further defining an output of the abstract idea (e.g., the distance of pressure influence; a radius of investigation). However, providing more specific details regarding a determination made in an abstract idea is still encompassed by the abstract idea. For example, the outcome of a determination is still part of the mental process and/or mathematical concept. Accordingly claims 15 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea and do not provide for a practical application of the abstract limitations identified in claim 1.
The limitations of claim 17 function to further define the abstract ideas recited in claim 1 with limitations which themselves are abstract. For example, the limitations directed to “utilizing the infinite acting model…”; “generating a derivative…”; and “generating boundary model derivatives” constitute limitations directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, or combinations thereof (e.g., see MPEP citation provided in claim 1 above). Accordingly claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea and does not provide for a practical application of the abstract limitations identified in claim 1.
The limitations of claim 18 are directed to an additional element of issuing a control signal to control the fluid operation; however, the limitation is recited at such a high level of generality that it is equivalent to a mere directive to apply the judicial exception (e.g., “apply it”). Regarding limitations directed to the application of a judicial exception, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 18 are merely directed to the idea of a solution or outcome and do not properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application include the limitations of Diehr. For example, the MPEP states “[i]n contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation ‘in a rubber molding process’. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of Diehr which integrated the abstract idea (e.g., calculations using the Arrhenius equation) into a practical application (e.g., opening the press automatically once the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception than that of the instant claims. For example, Diehr did not merely state “controlling the mold based in part on the temperature.” Accordingly the limitations of claim 18 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1—9, 16, and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Proett et al., hereinafter “Proett” (US 20150112599 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Proett discloses receiving sensor data acquired using one or more downhole tool pressure gauges (gauge 50 is a pressure gauge of formation tester 10, see FIG. 1; the pressure gauge receives pressure data as depicted in FIGs. 2 and 3) disposed in a borehole (wellbore 12, see FIG. 1) in a geologic formation (formation 13, see FIG. 1) responsive to a fluid operation (the formation 13 is responsive to a draw down and build up test which constitutes a fluid operation; see para. [0015] which describes analyzing a formation using draw down and build up tests), wherein the geologic formation comprises a reservoir (see para. [0019]—[0025] which describes the formation testing tool 10 and how it is used); and for the fluid operation, using at least an infinite acting model (para. [0044], “[i]n estimating the supercharge pressure as a quality parameter for use in the methods described herein, several simplifying assumptions may be made:… (4) radial invasion with infinite radial boundary.”), determining a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation (para. [0047], “[a]nother quality value that may be used in scoring test quality based on the drawdown-buildup sequence may include the radius of investigation. As used herein, the term “radius of investigation” refers to the distance that characterizes how far a tool (e.g., a formation tester, a logging tool, and the like) measures into the formation from the axis of the tool or wellbore.”; see para. [0047]—[0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Proett discloses wherein the distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation corresponds to a time (as seen in para. [0047]—[0048], the radius of investigation is a function of time).
Regarding claim 3, Proett discloses wherein the time is a time of the fluid operation (see para. [0047]—[0053] as provided in claim 1; build up time, draw down time, and transition time to pseudo-steady state constitutes fluid operations).
Regarding claim 4, Proett discloses wherein the distance of pressure influence corresponds to a feature of the geologic formation and a location of the feature with respect to the borehole (wellbore measurements (“WMs”) which may be derived from the pressure analysis include “formation total compressibility, isotropic formation permeability, spherical formation permeability… formation porosity, and any combination thereof,” as described in para. [0057] of Proett. These features constitute features of the geologic formation.).
Regarding claim 5, Proett discloses wherein the feature causes a measurable deviation in the sensor data with respect to data of the infinite acting model (pressure transient analysis, as discussed in Proett is directed to analysing how changes in pressure from drawdown and build up tests corresponds to formation properties such as permeability. See FIG.s 2 and 3 which show changes in pressure; see para. [0027], “[t]he bottom most pressure reached during the drawdown is the drawdown pressure (Pdd). When the pretest piston stops moving and fluid is no longer drawn into the fluid line 46, the pressure increases and results in a pressure “buildup” transient. The pressure is allowed to buildup until it is stable (Pstop). The flow line 46 is then returned to hydrostatic pressure when the equalization valve 52 (FIG. 1) is opened.”; also para. [0047]—[0048] which discusses calculating the radius of investigation based on the pressure data.).
Regarding claim 6, Proett discloses wherein the fluid operation comprises at least one drawdown period (para. [0027], [r]eferring now to FIG. 2, depicted is a pressure time plot for a typical pretest showing one drawdown and one buildup.”), at least one build-up period or at least one drawdown and build-up cycle (see all of para. [0027] along with FIGs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, Proett discloses receiving formation properties, wherein the infinite acting model utilizes the formation properties (the radius of investigation formulas (e.g., see para. [0047]—[0053]) are derived from the infinite acting model assumption (e.g., see para. [0044]) where the radius of investigation formulas take permeability k and porosity phi as independent variables) and comprising, for at least one of the formation properties, receiving uncertainty information (para. [0052], “[f]rom one or more wellbore measurements, a measured quality value (“MQV”) is determined as demonstrated earlier such as stability, radius of investigation, supercharge, and others.” The measured quality value, which is determined from the pressure analysis constitutes uncertainty information).
Regarding claim 8, Proett discloses wherein the uncertainty information comprises at least one range (para. [0052], “[t]he MQV is also assigned a range value (“RV”) based on geometric scaling of the TV, where the RV defines the limits of the MQV above and below the TV. Thereafter, a score value (“SV”) is calculated based on the MQV, the TV, and the RV, wherein the SV is a number between 0 and 2*TV, corresponding to the wellbore measurements' quality ranging from a low quality to a high quality, respectively.”).
Regarding claim 9, Proett discloses wherein the uncertainty information comprises at least one distribution (para. [0052], “[t]he MQV is also assigned a range value (“RV”) based on geometric scaling of the TV, where the RV defines the limits of the MQV above and below the TV. Thereafter, a score value (“SV”) is calculated based on the MQV, the TV, and the RV, wherein the SV is a number between 0 and 2*TV, corresponding to the wellbore measurements' quality ranging from a low quality to a high quality, respectively.” The quality designation associated with the measured quality value constitutes a distribution (e.g., low quality to high quality); see FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Proett discloses based at least in part on the distance of pressure influence, issuing a control signal to control the fluid operation (para. [0049], “[a] longer drawdown time may improve the radius of investigation. Drawdown time is also a parameter that can be controlled to improve the test quality, but it is dependent upon the formation quality (e.g., drawdown mobility) and pretest volume available in the formation tester 10 (i.e., the pretest chamber 48) (FIG. 1).” When the test quality indicates a poor test an increased drawdown period may be used. See para. [0043]—[0058] and FIGs. 1 and 5—6. Alternatively, a good test could trigger a fluid sample; para. [0024], “[a]s described above, the pretest is a quick, preliminary test that is performed after positioning the formation tester 10 to determine the quality of the test point before deciding to fill one or more sample chambers (not shown).”).
Regarding claim 19, Proett discloses a processor (para. [0060], “In some embodiments, the medium may include a computer with a standard processor, which may comprise a storage medium”);
memory accessible to the processor (see above citation to para. [0060]); processor-executable instructions stored in the memory, executable to instruct the system to:
receive sensor data acquired using one or more downhole tool pressure gauges (gauge 50 is a pressure gauge of formation tester 10, see FIG. 1; the pressure gauge receives pressure data as depicted in FIGs. 2 and 3) disposed in a borehole (wellbore 12, see FIG. 1) in a geologic formation (formation 13, see FIG. 1) responsive to a fluid operation (the formation 13 is responsive to a draw down and build up test which constitutes a fluid operation; see para. [0015] which describes analyzing a formation using draw down and build up tests), wherein the geologic formation comprises a reservoir (see para. [0019]—[0025] which describes the formation testing tool 10 and how it is used); and for the fluid operation, using at least an infinite acting model (para. [0044], “[i]n estimating the supercharge pressure as a quality parameter for use in the methods described herein, several simplifying assumptions may be made:… (4) radial invasion with infinite radial boundary.”), determining a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation (para. [0047], “[a]nother quality value that may be used in scoring test quality based on the drawdown-buildup sequence may include the radius of investigation. As used herein, the term “radius of investigation” refers to the distance that characterizes how far a tool (e.g., a formation tester, a logging tool, and the like) measures into the formation from the axis of the tool or wellbore.”; see para. [0047]—[0053]).
Regarding claim 20, Proett discloses [o]ne or more computer-readable storage media comprising processor-executable instructions (para. [0060], “In some embodiments, the medium may include a computer with a standard processor, which may comprise a storage medium”), executable to instruct a computing system to: receive sensor data acquired using one or more downhole tool pressure gauges (gauge 50 is a pressure gauge of formation tester 10, see FIG. 1; the pressure gauge receives pressure data as depicted in FIGs. 2 and 3) disposed in a borehole (wellbore 12, see FIG. 1) in a geologic formation (formation 13, see FIG. 1) responsive to a fluid operation (the formation 13 is responsive to a draw down and build up test which constitutes a fluid operation; see para. [0015] which describes analyzing a formation using draw down and build up tests), wherein the geologic formation comprises a reservoir (see para. [0019]—[0025] which describes the formation testing tool 10 and how it is used); and for the fluid operation, using at least an infinite acting model (para. [0044], “[i]n estimating the supercharge pressure as a quality parameter for use in the methods described herein, several simplifying assumptions may be made:… (4) radial invasion with infinite radial boundary.”), determining a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation (para. [0047], “[a]nother quality value that may be used in scoring test quality based on the drawdown-buildup sequence may include the radius of investigation. As used herein, the term “radius of investigation” refers to the distance that characterizes how far a tool (e.g., a formation tester, a logging tool, and the like) measures into the formation from the axis of the tool or wellbore.”; see para. [0047]—[0053]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 10—15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Proett et al., hereinafter “Proett” (US 20150112599 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Veneruso et al., hereinafter “Veneruso” (US 20040133350 A1).
Proett may not disclose the limitations of claim 10; however, Veneruso, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to pressure testing subterranean formations using pressure transient analysis, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Veneruso teaches using at least the infinite acting model (Veneruso, para. [0230]—[0232] which are directed to models considered in Proett and include multiple infinite acting model scenarios) in combination with at least one noise model for determining the distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation (see FIG. 1—4 where pressure measurements including noise 18 are processed through an algorithm (derivative software 16) to generate pressure data with reduced noise (higher resolution derivative 20).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the noise reduction process of Veneruso with the pressure analysis method of Proett. Both references are directed to analysing pressure transient data to determine information about the subterranean formation such that the inclusion of the method of Veneruso would function the same in Veneruso as in combination with Proett. The combination would generate the predictable results of providing for a method to remove the noise from pressure transient data.
Regarding claim 11, Proett modified by Veneruso teaches wherein the at least one noise model comprises a pressure gauge noise model (Veneruso, para. [0066], “[i]n this specification, two technologies have been combined together: (1) the development of high resolution and high accuracy pressure gauges adapted for use in a wellbore including signal processing of output signals from the gauges, and (2) reservoir engineering and practical application of the data obtained from those gauges.”).
Proett may not disclose the limitations of claim 12; however, Veneruso, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to pressure testing subterranean formations using pressure transient analysis, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Veneruso teaches wherein the determining depends at least in part on pressure gauge resolution (Veneruso, para. [0066], “[i]n this specification, two technologies have been combined together: (1) the development of high resolution and high accuracy pressure gauges adapted for use in a wellbore including signal processing of output signals from the gauges, and (2) reservoir engineering and practical application of the data obtained from those gauges.” Using the noise reduced data of Veneruso in the method of Proett would include making determinations from data where the resolution was a consideration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the noise reduction process of Veneruso with the pressure analysis method of Proett. Both references are directed to analysing pressure transient data to determine information about the subterranean formation such that the inclusion of the method of Veneruso would function the same in Veneruso as in combination with Proett. The combination would generate the predictable results of providing for a method to remove the noise from pressure transient data.
Proett may not disclose the limitations of claim 13; however, Veneruso, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to pressure testing subterranean formations using pressure transient analysis, teaches the deficient limitation. For example Veneruso teaches wherein the determining comprises utilizing a derivative noise envelope to discern a time when a derivative deviates from an infinite acting flow due to presence of a boundary (Veneruso, para. [0072], “in a flowing oil or gas well, a high resolution and high accuracy pressure gauge is used to sense the pressure in the well. That is, the high resolution and high accuracy pressure gauge is used to sense the ‘reaction’ of the reservoir to a change in the flowrate. By measuring that ‘reaction’, one can determine a significant amount of information about the reservoir, such as the size of the reservoir, how much fluid is in the reservoir, the permeability of the reservoir, boundaries, and other important properties of the reservoir.” Examiner notes that both Proett and Veneruso are performing pressure transient analysis, accordingly, either reference would be able to identify a boundary in a formation; however, the specific data used to perform the analysis of claim 13 (e.g., “determining”) would be that of Veneruso.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the noise reduction process of Veneruso with the pressure analysis method of Proett. Both references are directed to analysing pressure transient data to determine information about the subterranean formation such that the inclusion of the method of Veneruso would function the same in Veneruso as in combination with Proett. The combination would generate the predictable results of providing for a method to remove the noise from pressure transient data.
Regarding claim 14, Proett modified by Veneruso teaches generating the derivative noise envelope using a Bourdet derivative (Veneruso, para. [0008], “Various algorithms have been used in an effort to eliminate or reduce the inevitable noise associated with the numerical differentiation of measured data. For example, Bourdet, et al. 14 considers polynomial fitting of the data and taking the analytical derivative of the polynomial.”).
Regarding claim 15, Proett modified by Veneruso teaches wherein the time corresponds to the distance of pressure influence (in both Proett and Veneruso the pressure response is a function of time, see build up tests FIGs. 1 and 2 from Proett; see FIGs. 26—29 of Veneruso which show the pressure build up test along with the response derivative as a function of time).
Regarding claim 17, Proett may not disclose removing noise from the pressure measurements used in the analysis; however, Veneruso, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to pressure testing subterranean formations using pressure transient analysis, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Veneruso teaches a method of filtering noise from pressure data used in pressure transient analysis; see FIG. 1—4 where pressure measurements including noise 18 are processed through an algorithm (derivative software 16) to generate pressure data with reduced noise (higher resolution derivative 20).). Accordingly, Proett modified by Veneruso teach wherein the determining comprises utilizing the infinite acting model with noise (Proett does not teach the removal of noise and therefore teaches this limitation) and without noise (Veneruso teaches this limitation as set forth in the rejection of at least claims 10, 11, and 13), generating a derivative of the infinite acting model and a derivative envelope (see FIGs. 26—29 of Veneruso which include the analytical derivative which is depicted as an envelope), and generating boundary model derivatives (the boundaries may be determined from the analysis as described in Veneruso para. [0072] which states “in a flowing oil or gas well, a high resolution and high accuracy pressure gauge is used to sense the pressure in the well. That is, the high resolution and high accuracy pressure gauge is used to sense the ‘reaction’ of the reservoir to a change in the flowrate. By measuring that ‘reaction’, one can determine a significant amount of information about the reservoir, such as the size of the reservoir, how much fluid is in the reservoir, the permeability of the reservoir, boundaries, and other important properties of the reservoir.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the noise reduction process of Veneruso with the pressure analysis method of Proett. Both references are directed to analysing pressure transient data to determine information about the subterranean formation such that the inclusion of the method of Veneruso would function the same in Veneruso as in combination with Proett. The combination would generate the predictable results of providing for a method to remove the noise from pressure transient data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Ayoub et al. (US 4677849 A) which is directed to wellbore pressure analysis used to assess features of a subterranean formation by analyzing the pressure transient. The reference appears to cover multiple foundational topics related to the types of pressure analysis to which the instant application is directed (e.g., including the analysis of pressure builds ups and a function of time and the associated derivative envelopes) and is therefore identified and provided as an additional reference; and
Issued US Patent Application to Li et al. (US 11156082 B2) which is directed to the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to analyzing pressure build up data in order to assess features of the subterranean formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights