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 03/17/2023. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of WIPO Patent Application PCT/CN2022/096231 filed on 5/31/2022, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 03/22/2024 and 12/08/2025 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—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 8, and 15 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 the following abstract limitations:
“obtaining depositional data regarding a subsurface region” (e.g., a mental process)
“generating… a geological model for the subsurface region using a forward-depositional modeling process” (e.g., generating a model is a mental process and/or mathematical concept; a model in general is an abstract idea because it is an abstract representation of a real-world item or behavior);
“determining… carbonate cementation data for the subsurface region using a diagenetic modeling process… wherein the carbonate cementation data describes cementation in one or more depositional processes” (e.g., a mental process and/ or mathematical concept); and
“generating… a facies-cement model of the subsurface region” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 8 recited the following abstract limitations:
“obtaining depositional data regarding a subsurface region” (e.g., a mental process)
“generating… a geological model for the subsurface region using a forward-depositional modeling process” (e.g., generating a model is a mental process and/or mathematical concept; a model in general is an abstract idea because it is an abstract representation of a real-world item or behavior);
“determining… carbonate cementation data for the subsurface region using a diagenetic modeling process… wherein the carbonate cementation data describes cementation in one or more depositional processes” (e.g., a mental process and/ or mathematical concept); and
“generating… a facies-cement model of the subsurface region” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 15 recites the following abstract limitations:
“obtaining depositional data regarding a subsurface region” (e.g., a mental process)
“generating… a geological model for the subsurface region using a forward-depositional modeling process” (e.g., generating a model is a mental process and/or mathematical concept; a model in general is an abstract idea because it is an abstract representation of a real-world item or behavior);
“determining… carbonate cementation data for the subsurface region using a diagenetic modeling process… wherein the carbonate cementation data describes cementation in one or more depositional processes” (e.g., a mental process and/ or mathematical concept); and
“generating… a facies-cement model of the subsurface region” (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, or combinations thereof. For example, generating a model (e.g., including a geological model or a facies-cement model) is directed to a mental process and/or a mathematical concept insofar as the recited models are conceptual/mathematical representations of physical objects and/or processes. As recited, the limitation directed to “obtaining” geological data is performable by a human mind insofar as a human mind can obtain geological data by observing it. The limitation directed to “determining” data used in a modelling process is directed to an abstract idea insofar as determinations are performable in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept.
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, 8, and 15recite 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 following additional elements:
“wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data” (e.g., limiting data by source or content directed to extra-solution activity);
“by a computer processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”); and
“using… the depositional data, wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data” (e.g., limiting data by source or content directed to extra-solution activity).
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
“a plurality of wells coupled to a subsurface region” (e.g., indicative of a field of use);
“a reservoir simulator comprising a computer processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data” (e.g., limiting data by source or content directed to extra-solution activity); and
“using… the depositional data, wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data” (e.g., limiting data by source or content directed to extra-solution activity).
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
“non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data” (e.g., limiting data by source or content directed to extra-solution activity); and
“using… the depositional data, wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data” (e.g., limiting data by source or content directed to extra-solution activity).
The above identified limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 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).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations “wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data” and “using… the depositional data, wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data,” which constitute additional elements directed to limiting the data used to perform an abstract idea according to the source or content of the data. While the limitations are directed to additional elements, the limitations cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations are directed 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, the limitations directed to the specific type of data used in performing the abstract idea cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitations “a computer processor” while claim 15 recites “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions.” While both limitations are directed to additional elements, the limitations cannot provide for a practical application because limitations which merely recite generic computer components are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions (e.g., “apply it”). For example, 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… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (MPEP 2106.05(f), Section 2). Accordingly the limitations directed to generic computer components of claims 1, 8, and 15 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 8 recites the limitation “a plurality of wells coupled to a subsurface region,” which is directed to a field of use in which the judicial exception in applied. Such limitations cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because limiting an abstract idea to a field of use is not a practical application or significantly more. For example, 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, the above identified limitation of claim 8 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas of claim 8 because the limitation is merely indicative of the field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation of, or substantially to “determining a presence of hydrocarbons in the subsurface region using the facies-cement model,” which is directed to an abstract idea further comprising a mental process. For example, making determinations (e.g., the act of determining) are actions which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are performable in a human mind. Please see the above provided MPEP citations directed to mental processes. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 2 and 9 cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions of claims 1 and 8 because claims 2 and 9 are also directed to judicial exceptions.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 recite the limitation of, or substantially similar to “wave energy data is converted into a cementation abundance distribution within the subsurface to generate the facies-cement model,” which is directed to selecting, or further defining, the recited data (e.g., of claims 1, 8, and 15) by source or content. Such limitations cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitation is directed to 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, the limitations directed to the specific type of data used in performing the abstract idea as recited in claims 3, 10, and 16 cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite the limitation of, or substantially similar to “wherein at least a portion of the carbonate cementation data describes a cementation rate of one or more sedimentary deposits in the subsurface region,” which is directed to selecting, or further defining, the recited data (e.g., of claims 1, 8 and 15) by source or content. Such limitations cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitation is directed to 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, the limitations directed to the specific type of data used in performing the abstract idea as recited in claims 4, 11, and 17 cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite the limitation of, or substantially similar to “determining a geosteering command for a drilling system based on the facies-cement model,” which is directed to a mental process (e.g., making determinations is an action performable by a human mind) and therefore recites and abstract idea. Please see the above provided MPEP citations directed to mental processes. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 18 cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions of claims 1, 8, and 15 because claims 5, 12, and 18 are also directed to judicial exceptions.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the limitation of, or substantially similar to “wherein the depositional data further comprise bathymetry data, subsidence history data, sediment type data, and carbonate production data,” which is directed to further defining, the recited data (e.g., of claims 1, 8 and 15) by source or content. Such limitations cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitation is directed to 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, the limitations directed to the specific type of data used in performing the abstract idea as recited in claims 6, 13, and 19 cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exceptions.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the limitation of, or substantially similar to “wherein the geological model comprises a facies model, sediment proportion data, and bathymetry evolution data,” which is directed to abstract ideas comprising mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. For example, models including geological models are hypothetical constructs utilized to represent real-world behavior. The manner in which the model is structured may include mental processes (e.g., assigning labels to certain characteristics), mathematical concepts (e.g., modeling physical properties such subsidence in a basin due to sedimentary influx), or a combination thereof.
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—2, 5—9, 12—15, and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Le Guern (US 20200158898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Le Guern discloses [a] method (see methods 800, 1800, and 1900, the processes of which read on claim 1 as mapped below), comprising: obtaining depositional data regarding a subsurface region (block 1840 of FIG. 18 directed to acquiring seismic data of a subsurface region of the Earth; Examiner notes that in related methods 800 and 1900, the seismic is already acquired and is merely used to map the synthetic features to the subsurface features), wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data (para. [0068], “[a]s shown, an energy source (e.g., a transmitter) 342 may emit energy where the energy travels as waves that interact with the geologic environment 341… As an example, energy emitted by the energy source 342 may interact with a layer (e.g., a structure, an interface, etc.) 345 in the geologic environment 341 such that a portion of the energy is reflected, which may then be sensed by one or more of the sensors 344. Such energy may be reflected as an upgoing primary wave (e.g., or “primary” or “singly” reflected wave).”; seismic data constitutes wave impact data insofar as the waves impact subsurface geological surfaces and are reflected back to surface measurement devices);
generating, by a computer processor, a geological model (3D synthetic seismic volume of method step 1912 in method 1900 which relates to step 1830 in method 1800 and step 850 in method 800; see para. [0214]—[0215]. The 3D synthetic seismic volume is developed from a “second 3D model” described in para. [0214] which includes forward modelling to simulate geological processes and seismic data from the subsurface region of interest as described in para. [0215]) for the subsurface region using a forward-depositional modeling process and the depositional data (para. [0214], “[t]he method 1900 also includes generating a second 3D model (e.g., a 3D geological model) of the surface of the Earth using (1) the one or more properties that are assigned to the points in the first 3D model and (2) forward modeling technologies, as at 1910. The forward modeling technologies may simulate geological (e.g., sedimentary, diagenetic, and structural) processes responsible for the genesis of the exposed analogue.”), wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data (para. [0215], “[t]he method 1900 also includes generating a 3D synthetic (i.e., simulated) seismic volume model using (1) the second 3D model of the surface of the Earth and (2) one or more wavelets of seismic data (e.g., of the targeted subsurface reservoir), as at 1912. The output of the forward modeling technologies is populated with seismic velocities and a set of reflection coefficients are computed. The wavelet(s) extracted from the subsurface seismic volume is/are received and used for the convolutional modeling that produces the synthetic seismic volume.”);
determining, by the computer processor, carbonate cementation data (method 800 includes modeling block 840 which models geological processes including cementation due to diagenesis as described in para. [0149]—[0151] based on imagery data discussed in step 810. Likewise, step 1820 of method 1800 and steps 1904—1910 of method 1900 generates multi-dimensional geological data, including cementation data associated with diagenetic processes, from image data) for the subsurface region (the synthetic seismic which is mapped to the diagenetic domains interpretation as described in FIG. 8 is subsequently mapped to the actual seismic data of a subsurface region as described in FIG. 19; steps 810—840 of method 800 in FIG. 8 correspond to steps 1902—1910 of method 19 in FIG. 19) using a diagenetic modeling process (para. [153], “[a]s mentioned, the method 800 can include the modeling block 840 for geological process modeling. Such modeling may be applied to an interpreted 3D model that is based on imagery. For example, given a geocellular model with various features (e.g., structural and/or diagenetic domains, objects, etc.), geological process modeling may modify the geocellular model based on one or more types of geological processes.”) and the wave energy data (the wave energy data, as identified above is the seismic data which generates a 3D seismic grid to which additional data may be appended/correlated; see FIG. 19 steps 1912 and 1916), wherein the carbonate cementation data describes cementation in one or more depositional processes (para. [0150], “[a]s to diagenetic domains, this refers to diagenesis, which is the physical, chemical or biological alteration of sediments into sedimentary rock at relatively low temperatures and pressures that can result in changes to a rock's original mineralogy and texture. After deposition, sediments are compacted as they are buried beneath successive layers of sediment and cemented by minerals that precipitate from solution. Grains of sediment, rock fragments and fossils can be replaced by other minerals during diagenesis. Porosity may decrease during diagenesis, except in rare cases such as dissolution of minerals and dolomitization.”); and
generating, by the computer processor, a facies-cement model of the subsurface region (step 1916 of method 1900 where the synthetic seismic volume is compared/matched to the actual seismic data to identify common geological objects which includes all of the diagenetic domains developed from the forward modelling in step 1910; Examiner notes that forward modeling is applied to image data of exposed earth surfaces to model geological processes, including diagenetic processes, which is subsequently used to generate synthetic seismic which is then mapped to subsurface seismic features to generate a facies model which includes cementation information).
Regarding claim 2, Le Guern discloses determining a presence of hydrocarbons in the subsurface region using the facies-cement model (para. [0053], “[a] modeling framework marketed as the PETROMOD® framework (Schlumberger Limited, Houston, Tex.) includes features for input of various types of information (e.g., seismic, well, geological, etc.) to model evolution of a sedimentary basin. The PETROMOD® framework provides for petroleum systems modeling via input of various data such as seismic data, well data and other geological data, for example, to model evolution of a sedimentary basin. The PETROMOD® framework may predict if, and how, a reservoir has been charged with hydrocarbons, including, for example, the source and timing of hydrocarbon generation, migration routes, quantities, pore pressure and hydrocarbon type in the subsurface or at surface conditions.”).
Regarding claim 5, LeGuern discloses determining a geosteering command for a drilling system based on the facies-cement model (para. [0219] “[t]he method 1900 also includes determining a remedial action to take in response to the 3D synthetic seismic volume model and/or the common geological objects, as at 1918. The remedial action may be a physical, real-world action, which may be based on the extraction of identified geological objects as 3D volumes, property population of such 3D volumes constrained by the knowledge, and/or the properties analysis derived from the exposed analogue and the 3D synthetic seismic volume model. The remedial action may be or include, but is not limited to, well planning (e.g., for exploration purposes), well placement (e.g., well steering-while-drilling), field development planning, fluid flow modeling, and field management (e.g., injection and depletion). For example, the remedial action may include altering a trajectory of a downhole tool that is drilling a wellbore in the targeted subsurface reservoir.”).
Regarding claim 6, Le Guern discloses wherein the depositional data further comprise bathymetry data (sea level block 1126), subsidence history data (subsidence and uplift block 1128), sediment type data (a sediment types block 1134), and carbonate production data (sediment sources block 1124, see para. [0154] citation; para. [0172], “a model generation framework 1120 may be implemented using one or more types of information, processes, etc. Such a framework may be or include features of a GPM framework. In the example of FIG. 11, the framework 1120 can include a paleotopography block 1122, a sediment sources block 1124, a sea level block 1126 (e.g., as to systems tracts, etc.), a subsidence and uplift block 1128, a diffusion function block 1130, a steady/unsteady flow block 1132, and a sediment types block 1134.”; para. [0154], “a GPM framework can include a simulator for stratigraphic forward modeling that reconstructs the processes of erosion, transport and deposition of clastic sediments as well as carbonate growth and redistribution. Such models may show the geometry and composition of the stratigraphic sequences attributable to the interaction of sea level change, paleogeography, paleoclimate, tectonics and variation in sediment supply. A GPM framework may provide for deterministic modeling of complex heterogeneous geological settings such as the resulting bedding structure from multiple sediment sources and the dual porosities stemming from multiple diagenetic processes over geological time in carbonates. Geological process modeling can create realistic models with geological elements properly positioned with respect to other elements in a deterministic model. A model may capture details such as shale baffles, etc.”).
Regarding claim 7, Le Guern discloses wherein the geological model comprises a facies model (para. [0050], “data may include depth and thickness maps stemming from facies variations (e.g., due to seismic unconformities) assumed to following geological events (“iso” times) and data may include lateral facies variations (e.g., due to lateral variation in sedimentation characteristics).”), sediment proportion data (para. [0154], “a GPM framework can include a simulator for stratigraphic forward modeling that reconstructs the processes of erosion, transport and deposition of clastic sediments as well as carbonate growth and redistribution. Such models may show the geometry and composition of the stratigraphic sequences attributable to the interaction of sea level change, paleogeography, paleoclimate, tectonics and variation in sediment supply.”), and bathymetry evolution data (sea level block 1126; see para. [0172]).
Regarding claim 8, Le Guern discloses [a] system, comprising: a plurality of wells coupled to a subsurface region (para. [0032], “the simulation component 120 may rely on entities 122. Entities 122 may include earth entities or geological objects such as wells, surfaces, bodies, reservoirs, etc. In the system 100, the entities 122 can include virtual representations of actual physical entities that are reconstructed for purposes of simulation. The entities 122 may include entities based on data acquired via sensing, observation, etc. (e.g., the seismic data 112 and other information 114).”); and a reservoir simulator (models described in method 800, 1800, and 1900 which are executed on a computer) comprising a computer processor (processors 256) and coupled to the plurality of wells (data from the field which includes wells is provided to the processor), wherein the reservoir simulator comprises functionality for:
obtaining depositional data regarding a subsurface region (block 1840 of FIG. 18 directed to acquiring seismic data of a subsurface region of the Earth; Examiner notes that in related methods 800 and 1900, the seismic is already acquired and is merely used to map the synthetic features to the subsurface features), wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data (para. [0068], “[a]s shown, an energy source (e.g., a transmitter) 342 may emit energy where the energy travels as waves that interact with the geologic environment 341… As an example, energy emitted by the energy source 342 may interact with a layer (e.g., a structure, an interface, etc.) 345 in the geologic environment 341 such that a portion of the energy is reflected, which may then be sensed by one or more of the sensors 344. Such energy may be reflected as an upgoing primary wave (e.g., or “primary” or “singly” reflected wave).”; seismic data constitutes wave impact data insofar as the waves impact subsurface geological surfaces and are reflected back to surface measurement devices);
generating a geological model (3D synthetic seismic volume of method step 1912 in method 1900 which relates to step 1830 in method 1800 and step 850 in method 800; see para. [0214]—[0215]. The 3D synthetic seismic volume is developed from a “second 3D model” described in para. [0214] which includes forward modelling to simulate geological processes and seismic data from the subsurface region of interest as described in para. [0215]) for the subsurface region using a forward-depositional modeling process and the depositional data (para. [0214], “[t]he method 1900 also includes generating a second 3D model (e.g., a 3D geological model) of the surface of the Earth using (1) the one or more properties that are assigned to the points in the first 3D model and (2) forward modeling technologies, as at 1910. The forward modeling technologies may simulate geological (e.g., sedimentary, diagenetic, and structural) processes responsible for the genesis of the exposed analogue.”), wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data (para. [0215], “[t]he method 1900 also includes generating a 3D synthetic (i.e., simulated) seismic volume model using (1) the second 3D model of the surface of the Earth and (2) one or more wavelets of seismic data (e.g., of the targeted subsurface reservoir), as at 1912. The output of the forward modeling technologies is populated with seismic velocities and a set of reflection coefficients are computed. The wavelet(s) extracted from the subsurface seismic volume is/are received and used for the convolutional modeling that produces the synthetic seismic volume.”);
determining carbonate cementation data (method 800 includes modeling block 840 which models geological processes including cementation due to diagenesis as described in para. [0149]—[0151] based on imagery data discussed in step 810. Likewise, step 1820 of method 1800 and steps 1904—1910 of method 1900 generates multi-dimensional geological data, including cementation data associated with diagenetic processes, from image data) for the subsurface region (the synthetic seismic which is mapped to the diagenetic domains interpretation as described in FIG. 8 is subsequently mapped to the actual seismic data of a subsurface region as described in FIG. 19; steps 810—840 of method 800 in FIG. 8 correspond to steps 1902—1910 of method 19 in FIG. 19) using a diagenetic modeling process (para. [153], “[a]s mentioned, the method 800 can include the modeling block 840 for geological process modeling. Such modeling may be applied to an interpreted 3D model that is based on imagery. For example, given a geocellular model with various features (e.g., structural and/or diagenetic domains, objects, etc.), geological process modeling may modify the geocellular model based on one or more types of geological processes.”) and the wave energy data (the wave energy data, as identified above is the seismic data which generates a 3D seismic grid to which additional data may be appended/correlated; see FIG. 19 steps 1912 and 1916), wherein the carbonate cementation data describes cementation in one or more depositional processes (para. [0150], “[a]s to diagenetic domains, this refers to diagenesis, which is the physical, chemical or biological alteration of sediments into sedimentary rock at relatively low temperatures and pressures that can result in changes to a rock's original mineralogy and texture. After deposition, sediments are compacted as they are buried beneath successive layers of sediment and cemented by minerals that precipitate from solution. Grains of sediment, rock fragments and fossils can be replaced by other minerals during diagenesis. Porosity may decrease during diagenesis, except in rare cases such as dissolution of minerals and dolomitization.”); and
generating a facies-cement model of the subsurface region (step 1916 of method 1900 where the synthetic seismic volume is compared/matched to the actual seismic data to identify common geological objects which includes all of the diagenetic domains developed from the forward modelling in step 1910; steps 1850 and 1860 of method 1800 performs a similar function as step 1916 insofar as step 1850 characterizes the geological features of the subsurface by matching the synthetic seismic responses associated with certain geological features to subsurface features identified in the seismic data; Examiner notes that forward modeling is applied to image data of exposed earth surfaces to model geological processes, including diagenetic processes, which is subsequently used to generate synthetic seismic which is then mapped to subsurface seismic features to generate a facies model which includes cementation information).
Regarding claim 9, Le Guern discloses the reservoir simulator further comprises functionality for determining a presence of hydrocarbons in the subsurface region using the facies-cement model (para. [0053], “[a] modeling framework marketed as the PETROMOD® framework (Schlumberger Limited, Houston, Tex.) includes features for input of various types of information (e.g., seismic, well, geological, etc.) to model evolution of a sedimentary basin. The PETROMOD® framework provides for petroleum systems modeling via input of various data such as seismic data, well data and other geological data, for example, to model evolution of a sedimentary basin. The PETROMOD® framework may predict if, and how, a reservoir has been charged with hydrocarbons, including, for example, the source and timing of hydrocarbon generation, migration routes, quantities, pore pressure and hydrocarbon type in the subsurface or at surface conditions.”).
Regarding claim 12, LeGuern discloses determining a geosteering command for a drilling system based on the facies-cement model (para. [0219] “[t]he method 1900 also includes determining a remedial action to take in response to the 3D synthetic seismic volume model and/or the common geological objects, as at 1918. The remedial action may be a physical, real-world action, which may be based on the extraction of identified geological objects as 3D volumes, property population of such 3D volumes constrained by the knowledge, and/or the properties analysis derived from the exposed analogue and the 3D synthetic seismic volume model. The remedial action may be or include, but is not limited to, well planning (e.g., for exploration purposes), well placement (e.g., well steering-while-drilling), field development planning, fluid flow modeling, and field management (e.g., injection and depletion). For example, the remedial action may include altering a trajectory of a downhole tool that is drilling a wellbore in the targeted subsurface reservoir.”).
Regarding claim 13, Le Guern discloses wherein the depositional data further comprise bathymetry data (sea level block 1126), subsidence history data (subsidence and uplift block 1128), sediment type data (a sediment types block 1134), and carbonate production data (sediment sources block 1124, see para. [0154] citation; para. [0172], “a model generation framework 1120 may be implemented using one or more types of information, processes, etc. Such a framework may be or include features of a GPM framework. In the example of FIG. 11, the framework 1120 can include a paleotopography block 1122, a sediment sources block 1124, a sea level block 1126 (e.g., as to systems tracts, etc.), a subsidence and uplift block 1128, a diffusion function block 1130, a steady/unsteady flow block 1132, and a sediment types block 1134.”; para. [0154], “a GPM framework can include a simulator for stratigraphic forward modeling that reconstructs the processes of erosion, transport and deposition of clastic sediments as well as carbonate growth and redistribution. Such models may show the geometry and composition of the stratigraphic sequences attributable to the interaction of sea level change, paleogeography, paleoclimate, tectonics and variation in sediment supply. A GPM framework may provide for deterministic modeling of complex heterogeneous geological settings such as the resulting bedding structure from multiple sediment sources and the dual porosities stemming from multiple diagenetic processes over geological time in carbonates. Geological process modeling can create realistic models with geological elements properly positioned with respect to other elements in a deterministic model. A model may capture details such as shale baffles, etc.”).
Regarding claim 14, Le Guern discloses wherein the geological model comprises a facies model (para. [0050], “data may include depth and thickness maps stemming from facies variations (e.g., due to seismic unconformities) assumed to following geological events (“iso” times) and data may include lateral facies variations (e.g., due to lateral variation in sedimentation characteristics).”), sediment proportion data (para. [0154], “a GPM framework can include a simulator for stratigraphic forward modeling that reconstructs the processes of erosion, transport and deposition of clastic sediments as well as carbonate growth and redistribution. Such models may show the geometry and composition of the stratigraphic sequences attributable to the interaction of sea level change, paleogeography, paleoclimate, tectonics and variation in sediment supply.”), and bathymetry evolution data (sea level block 1126; see para. [0172]).
Regarding claim 15, Le Guern discloses [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor (para. [0208], “FIG. 18 also shows various computer-readable medium (CRM) blocks 1811, 1821, 1831, 1841, 1851, and 1861 as associated with the blocks 1810, 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850, and 1860. Such blocks can include instructions that are executable by one or more processors, which can be one or more processors of a computational framework, a system, a computer, etc.”), the instructions comprising functionality for:
obtaining depositional data regarding a subsurface region (block 1840 of FIG. 18 directed to acquiring seismic data of a subsurface region of the Earth; Examiner notes that in related methods 800 and 1900, the seismic is already acquired and is merely used to map the synthetic features to the subsurface features), wherein the depositional data comprises wave impact data (para. [0068], “[a]s shown, an energy source (e.g., a transmitter) 342 may emit energy where the energy travels as waves that interact with the geologic environment 341… As an example, energy emitted by the energy source 342 may interact with a layer (e.g., a structure, an interface, etc.) 345 in the geologic environment 341 such that a portion of the energy is reflected, which may then be sensed by one or more of the sensors 344. Such energy may be reflected as an upgoing primary wave (e.g., or “primary” or “singly” reflected wave).”; seismic data constitutes wave impact data insofar as the waves impact subsurface geological surfaces and are reflected back to surface measurement devices);
generating a geological model (3D synthetic seismic volume of method step 1912 in method 1900 which relates to step 1830 in method 1800 and step 850 in method 800; see para. [0214]—[0215]. The 3D synthetic seismic volume is developed from a “second 3D model” described in para. [0214] which includes forward modelling to simulate geological processes and seismic data from the subsurface region of interest as described in para. [0215]) for the subsurface region using a forward-depositional modeling process and the depositional data (para. [0214], “[t]he method 1900 also includes generating a second 3D model (e.g., a 3D geological model) of the surface of the Earth using (1) the one or more properties that are assigned to the points in the first 3D model and (2) forward modeling technologies, as at 1910. The forward modeling technologies may simulate geological (e.g., sedimentary, diagenetic, and structural) processes responsible for the genesis of the exposed analogue.”), wherein the geological model comprises wave energy data (para. [0215], “[t]he method 1900 also includes generating a 3D synthetic (i.e., simulated) seismic volume model using (1) the second 3D model of the surface of the Earth and (2) one or more wavelets of seismic data (e.g., of the targeted subsurface reservoir), as at 1912. The output of the forward modeling technologies is populated with seismic velocities and a set of reflection coefficients are computed. The wavelet(s) extracted from the subsurface seismic volume is/are received and used for the convolutional modeling that produces the synthetic seismic volume.”);
determining carbonate cementation data (method 800 includes modeling block 840 which models geological processes including cementation due to diagenesis as described in para. [0149]—[0151] based on imagery data discussed in step 810. Likewise, step 1820 of method 1800 and steps 1904—1910 of method 1900 generates multi-dimensional geological data, including cementation data associated with diagenetic processes, from image data) for the subsurface region (the synthetic seismic which is mapped to the diagenetic domains interpretation as described in FIG. 8 is subsequently mapped to the actual seismic data of a subsurface region as described in FIG. 19; steps 810—840 of method 800 in FIG. 8 correspond to steps 1902—1910 of method 19 in FIG. 19) using a diagenetic modeling process (para. [153], “[a]s mentioned, the method 800 can include the modeling block 840 for geological process modeling. Such modeling may be applied to an interpreted 3D model that is based on imagery. For example, given a geocellular model with various features (e.g., structural and/or diagenetic domains, objects, etc.), geological process modeling may modify the geocellular model based on one or more types of geological processes.”) and the wave energy data (the wave energy data, as identified above is the seismic data which generates a 3D seismic grid to which additional data may be appended/correlated; see FIG. 19 steps 1912 and 1916), wherein the carbonate cementation data describes cementation in one or more depositional processes (para. [0150], “[a]s to diagenetic domains, this refers to diagenesis, which is the physical, chemical or biological alteration of sediments into sedimentary rock at relatively low temperatures and pressures that can result in changes to a rock's original mineralogy and texture. After deposition, sediments are compacted as they are buried beneath successive layers of sediment and cemented by minerals that precipitate from solution. Grains of sediment, rock fragments and fossils can be replaced by other minerals during diagenesis. Porosity may decrease during diagenesis, except in rare cases such as dissolution of minerals and dolomitization.”); and
generating a facies-cement model of the subsurface region (step 1916 of method 1900 where the synthetic seismic volume is compared/matched to the actual seismic data to identify common geological objects which includes all of the diagenetic domains developed from the forward modelling in step 1910; steps 1850 and 1860 of method 1800 performs a similar function as step 1916 insofar as step 1850 characterizes the geological features of the subsurface by matching the synthetic seismic responses associated with certain geological features to subsurface features identified in the seismic data; Examiner notes that forward modeling is applied to image data of exposed earth surfaces to model geological processes, including diagenetic processes, which is subsequently used to generate synthetic seismic which is then mapped to subsurface seismic features to generate a facies model which includes cementation information).
Regarding claim 18, LeGuern discloses determining a geosteering command for a drilling system based on the facies-cement model (para. [0219] “[t]he method 1900 also includes determining a remedial action to take in response to the 3D synthetic seismic volume model and/or the common geological objects, as at 1918. The remedial action may be a physical, real-world action, which may be based on the extraction of identified geological objects as 3D volumes, property population of such 3D volumes constrained by the knowledge, and/or the properties analysis derived from the exposed analogue and the 3D synthetic seismic volume model. The remedial action may be or include, but is not limited to, well planning (e.g., for exploration purposes), well placement (e.g., well steering-while-drilling), field development planning, fluid flow modeling, and field management (e.g., injection and depletion). For example, the remedial action may include altering a trajectory of a downhole tool that is drilling a wellbore in the targeted subsurface reservoir.”).
Regarding claim 19, Le Guern discloses wherein the depositional data further comprise bathymetry data (sea level block 1126), subsidence history data (subsidence and uplift block 1128), sediment type data (a sediment types block 1134), and carbonate production data (sediment sources block 1124, see para. [0154] citation; para. [0172], “a model generation framework 1120 may be implemented using one or more types of information, processes, etc. Such a framework may be or include features of a GPM framework. In the example of FIG. 11, the framework 1120 can include a paleotopography block 1122, a sediment sources block 1124, a sea level block 1126 (e.g., as to systems tracts, etc.), a subsidence and uplift block 1128, a diffusion function block 1130, a steady/unsteady flow block 1132, and a sediment types block 1134.”; para. [0154], “a GPM framework can include a simulator for stratigraphic forward modeling that reconstructs the processes of erosion, transport and deposition of clastic sediments as well as carbonate growth and redistribution. Such models may show the geometry and composition of the stratigraphic sequences attributable to the interaction of sea level change, paleogeography, paleoclimate, tectonics and variation in sediment supply. A GPM framework may provide for deterministic modeling of complex heterogeneous geological settings such as the resulting bedding structure from multiple sediment sources and the dual porosities stemming from multiple diagenetic processes over geological time in carbonates. Geological process modeling can create realistic models with geological elements properly positioned with respect to other elements in a deterministic model. A model may capture details such as shale baffles, etc.”).
Regarding claim 20, Le Guern discloses wherein the geological model comprises a facies model (para. [0050], “data may include depth and thickness maps stemming from facies variations (e.g., due to seismic unconformities) assumed to following geological events (“iso” times) and data may include lateral facies variations (e.g., due to lateral variation in sedimentation characteristics).”), sediment proportion data (para. [0154], “a GPM framework can include a simulator for stratigraphic forward modeling that reconstructs the processes of erosion, transport and deposition of clastic sediments as well as carbonate growth and redistribution. Such models may show the geometry and composition of the stratigraphic sequences attributable to the interaction of sea level change, paleogeography, paleoclimate, tectonics and variation in sediment supply.”), and bathymetry evolution data (sea level block 1126; see para. [0172]).
Subject Matter Not Rejected by the Prior Art
Claims 3—4, 10—11, and 16—17 recite subject matter which was either 1.) not found at the time of examination or 2.) was not obvious to combine with the above provided rejection. While the claims are not rejected under the prior art rejection, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception without the inclusion of a practical application and/or significantly more.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims recite specific limitations directed to cementation distribution and cementation rate which were not found in the prior art at the time of examination. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Issued US Patent to Lander et al. (US 10330658 B2) which teaches methods of modelling sedimentary depositional processes including burial, compaction, and associated chemical reactions. The application specifically discusses cement growth rates and associated diagenesis for sedimentary deposits; and
Issued US Patent to Awwiller (US 7933757 B2) which teaches a model of using the Arrhenius equation to calculate a cement grow rate within a pore space based on simulated sediments.
Conclusion
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
/TARA SCHIMPF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
