Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 8, and 15 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “…such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned…”. The term “such that” makes it unclear and indefinite on whether the limitation is positively recited as taking place. The examiner will interpret the limitation as being positively recited. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mental processes.
generating a geological structure map of an area of interest within a subsurface of a reservoir, wherein the area of interest is defined by a set of spatial coordinates;
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a map based on an area of interest defined by coordinates.
generating a set of tilt maps for the geological structure map, wherein each tilt map from the set of tilt maps represents a hydrodynamic condition caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir;
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a set of tilt maps based on hydrodynamic conditions caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir.
combining each tilt map with the geological structure map so that the geological structure map is recast to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps, wherein each hydrodynamic structure map has a corresponding tilt map; and
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps based on corresponding hydrodynamic structure maps and corresponding tilt maps.
identifying one or more closures in each hydrodynamic structure map of the set of hydrodynamic structure maps such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned when the set of hydrodynamic structure maps have been scanned, wherein each closure represents a potential hydrodynamic trap in the subsurface where fluid can accumulate under the hydrodynamic gradient.
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an observation to identify closures in each hydrodynamic structure map.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to mental processes, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4-6:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying how the identifying, quantifying, and ranking are performed, like the topographic prominence algorithm (claim 2), quantifying the closures and ranking the potential traps (claim 4), area, volume, or count metrics (claim 5), and grading and selecting a trap (claim 6). Thus, the claims remain as a mental process. MPEP 2106.05 (a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claim 3:
This claim merely adds pre-solution data gathering through the measurement-based adjustability clause MPEP 2106.05(g) or it narrows the ranges of hydrodynamic conditions considered. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim does not resolve the issues for the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 7:
This claim merely links the field of use by characterizing the fluid as positively or negatively buoyancy MPEP 2106.05(h). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim does not resolve the issues for the claim it depends upon.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “system” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mental processes.
generating a geological structure map of an area of interest within a subsurface of a reservoir, wherein the area of interest is defined by a set of spatial coordinates;
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a map based on an area of interest defined by coordinates.
generating a set of tilt maps for the geological structure map, wherein each tilt map from the set of tilt maps represents a hydrodynamic condition caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir;
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a set of tilt maps based on hydrodynamic conditions caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir.
combining each tilt map with the geological structure map so that the geological structure map is recast to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps, wherein each hydrodynamic structure map has a corresponding tilt map; and
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps based on corresponding hydrodynamic structure maps and corresponding tilt maps.
identifying one or more closures in each hydrodynamic structure map of the set of hydrodynamic structure maps such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned when the set of hydrodynamic structure maps have been scanned, wherein each closure represents a potential hydrodynamic trap in the subsurface where fluid can accumulate under the hydrodynamic gradient.
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an observation to identify closures in each hydrodynamic structure map.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
A computer system comprising one or more hardware computer processors configured to perform operations of:
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This limitation merely recites generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea, which falls under “apply it”.
Conclusion: Claim 8 is directed to mental processes, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 9 and 11-13:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying how the identifying, quantifying, and ranking are performed, like the topographic prominence algorithm (claim 9), quantifying the closures and ranking the potential traps (claim 11), area, volume, or count metrics (claim 12), and grading and selecting a trap (claim 13). Thus, the claims remain as a mental process. MPEP 2106.05 (a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claim 10:
This claim merely adds pre-solution data gathering through the measurement-based adjustability clause MPEP 2106.05(g) or it narrows the ranges of hydrodynamic conditions considered. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim does not resolve the issues for the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 14:
This claim merely links the field of use by characterizing the fluid as positively or negatively buoyancy MPEP 2106.05(h). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim does not resolve the issues for the claim it depends upon.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mental processes.
generating a geological structure map of an area of interest within a subsurface of a reservoir, wherein the area of interest is defined by a set of spatial coordinates;
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a map based on an area of interest defined by coordinates.
generating a set of tilt maps for the geological structure map, wherein each tilt map from the set of tilt maps represents a hydrodynamic condition caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir;
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a set of tilt maps based on hydrodynamic conditions caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir.
combining each tilt map with the geological structure map so that the geological structure map is recast to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps, wherein each hydrodynamic structure map has a corresponding tilt map; and
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps based on corresponding hydrodynamic structure maps and corresponding tilt maps.
identifying one or more closures in each hydrodynamic structure map of the set of hydrodynamic structure maps such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned when the set of hydrodynamic structure maps have been scanned, wherein each closure represents a potential hydrodynamic trap in the subsurface where fluid can accumulate under the hydrodynamic gradient.
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. In this case an observation to identify closures in each hydrodynamic structure map.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising software instructions that, when executed, cause a computer processor to perform operations of:
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This limitation merely recites generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea, which falls under “apply it”.
Conclusion: Claim 15 is directed to mental processes, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 16 and 18-20:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying how the identifying, quantifying, and ranking are performed, like the topographic prominence algorithm (claim 16), quantifying the closures and ranking the potential traps (claim 18), area, volume, or count metrics (claim 19), and grading and selecting a trap (claim 20). Thus, the claims remain as a mental process. MPEP 2106.05 (a). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claim 17:
This claim merely adds pre-solution data gathering through the measurement-based adjustability clause MPEP 2106.05(g) or it narrows the ranges of hydrodynamic conditions considered. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim does not resolve the issues for the claim it depends upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of YANG et al. “Equation for defining hydrodynamic oil-water contact surface and an alternative approach, “structure surface transformation” for mapping hydrodynamic traps “, and in view of WENDEBOURG et al. “Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon trapping: Concepts, pitfalls and insights from case studies “, instant independent claims 1, 8, and 15, would not have been anticipated or obvious by one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
YANG et al. “Equation for defining hydrodynamic oil-water contact surface and an alternative approach, “structure surface transformation” for mapping hydrodynamic traps “ teaches mapping hydrodynamic traps.
WENDEBOURG et al. “Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon trapping: Concepts, pitfalls and insights from case studies “ teaches hydrodynamics for hydrocarbon trapping.
For claim 1, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “generating a set of tilt maps for the geological structure map, wherein each tilt map from the set of tilt maps represents a hydrodynamic condition caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir; combining each tilt map with the geological structure map so that the geological structure map is recast to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps, wherein each hydrodynamic structure map has a corresponding tilt map; and identifying one or more closures in each hydrodynamic structure map of the set of hydrodynamic structure maps such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned when the set of hydrodynamic structure maps have been scanned”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 2-6 would be allowable for depending from claim 1 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 8, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “generating a set of tilt maps for the geological structure map, wherein each tilt map from the set of tilt maps represents a hydrodynamic condition caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir; combining each tilt map with the geological structure map so that the geological structure map is recast to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps, wherein each hydrodynamic structure map has a corresponding tilt map; and identifying one or more closures in each hydrodynamic structure map of the set of hydrodynamic structure maps such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned when the set of hydrodynamic structure maps have been scanned”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 9-14 would be allowable for depending from claim 8 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 15, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “generating a set of tilt maps for the geological structure map, wherein each tilt map from the set of tilt maps represents a hydrodynamic condition caused by a hydrodynamic gradient in the area of interest of the reservoir; combining each tilt map with the geological structure map so that the geological structure map is recast to generate a set of hydrodynamic structure maps, wherein each hydrodynamic structure map has a corresponding tilt map; and identifying one or more closures in each hydrodynamic structure map of the set of hydrodynamic structure maps such that potential hydrodynamic traps in the subsurface of the reservoir are automatically scanned when the set of hydrodynamic structure maps have been scanned”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 16-20 would be allowable for depending from claim 15 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210389497A1 teaches a method for analyzing a hydrocarbon trap, for hydrocarbon production.
US9194968B2 teaches a method for analyzing seismic data representing a subsurface region for presence of a hydrocarbon system or a particular play. Seismic attributes are computed, the attributes being selected to relate to the classical elements of a hydrocarbon system, namely reservoir, seal, trap, source, maturation, and migration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights