DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a depositional time” in both lines 5 and 10-11. It is unclear if these are the same depositional times or different depositional times. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 12 recites “at the present time” in line 4 in relation to input data. However, the claimed time step is from the depositional time to the present time. It is unclear how the repetition from the depositional time to the present time could occur if the input data is the present time. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a depositional time.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a depositional time” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if this is the same depositional times as the one recited in line 5. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the depositional time" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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 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 Subject Matter Eligibility Test 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 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (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 Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including: “wherein the input data comprise: depositional temperature and burial depth as function of a depositional time, and facies data and compaction data, adding a time interval to the depositional time, entering the 1D input data in a diagenesis model, wherein the diagenesis model comprises a compaction model that outputs a predicted compaction at a depositional time, and a cementation model that outputs a predicted cementation at the depositional time, repeating the previous two steps until the depositional time is the present time, and the diagenesis model outputs a predicted compaction curve with porosity as function of depth.”
Claim 12 recites abstract limitations, including: “wherein the input data comprises a depth map, and a facies map, at the present time, adding a time interval to the depositional time, entering the 2D input data in a diagenesis model, wherein the diagenesis model comprises a compaction model that outputs a predicted compaction at a depositional time, and a cementation model that outputs a predicted cementation at the depositional time, repeating the previous two steps until the depositional time is the present time, and the diagenesis model outputs a predicted porosity map, a predicted permeability map, a predicted compacted porosity map, and a predicted cement map.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A 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 elements of: drilling a well that penetrates the reservoir, and acquiring one-dimensional (1D) input data from the well.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of: drilling a well that penetrates the reservoir, and acquiring 2D input data from the well and seismic interpretation.
“[D]rilling a well that penetrates the reservoir” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[A]cquiring one-dimensional (1D) input data from the well” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[A]cquiring 2D input data from the well and seismic interpretation” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary product/process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, 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, the recited step of “drilling a well that penetrates the reservoir” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Poedjono (US 2015/0253418 see ¶ [0005]) discloses drilling a well that penetrates a reservoir is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
“[A]cquiring one-dimensional (1D) input data from the well” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “acquiring” (i.e., importing/transmitting data) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
“[A]cquiring 2D input data from the well and seismic interpretation” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation of “acquiring” (i.e., importing/transmitting data) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 2-11 and 13-19 further recite:
Claim 2: the diagenesis model uses a compaction model with two equations to predict the compaction curve, wherein a first equation is for depths above 2 km (6561.68 ft) and a second equation is for depths below 2 km (6561.68 ft);
Claim 3: the first equation is an exponential relationship between porosity and depth;
Claim 4: first equation is controlled by mechanical compaction;
Claim 5: the second equation is an exponential relationship between porosity and depth;
Claim 6: the second equation is controlled by quartz cementation;
Claim 7: the cementation model comprises a kinetical-controlled quartz cementation model from Lander and Walderhaug;
Claim 8: the diagenesis model further outputs with each depositional time: compacted porosity, effective reaction surface area, volume of the quartz cement, volume of illite cement, final porosity, and final permeability;
Claim 9: the diagenesis model predicts the permeability by Kozeny-Carman equation;
Claim 10: the facies and compaction data comprise abundance of quartz grains in initial sediment, surface area of the quartz coated, average diameter of initial quartz grains, compacted porosity pre-exponential constant in the upper depth section, compacted porosity pre-exponential constant in the lower depth section, compacted porosity exponential constant in the upper depth section, compacted porosity exponential constant in the lower depth section, and permeability;
Claim 11: the diagenesis model is calibrated by adjusting the parameters of the diagenesis model;
Claim 13: the diagenesis model uses a compaction model with two equations to predict the compaction curve, wherein a first equation is for depths above 2 km (6561.68 ft) and a second equation is for depths below 2 km (6561.68 ft);
Claim 14: the first equation is an exponential relationship between porosity and depth;
Claim 15: the second equation is an exponential relationship between porosity and depth;
Claim 16: the cementation model uses a kinetical-controlled quartz cementation model from Lander and Walderhaug;
Claim 17: the diagenesis model 'further outputs with each depositional time: compacted porosity, effective reaction surface area, volume of the quartz cement, volume of illite cement, final porosity, and final permeability;
Claim 18: the diagenesis model predicts the permeability map by Kozeny-Carman equation; and
Claim 19: the diagenesis model is calibrated by adjusting the parameters of the diagenesis model
which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and the 101 rejection(s) presented above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious using input data that is a function of a depositional time and then performing repeat analysis for time steps from the depositional time to the present day to determine cementation and compaction at each time interval to eventually output a curve of porosity as a function of dept at the present day.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lander (US 2015/0355158) discloses a time step process from deposition to present (Fig. 1B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
