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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 4, 12, & 14 have been amended. Claims 3, 6, 8, & 17 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 6 line 14 to page 7 line 5, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Claim objections to claims 2, 4-5, 7, & 9-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 2, 4-5, 7, & 9-11 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 6 line 14 to page 7 line 5, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Claim objections to claims 12-16, & 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 7 lines 1-3):
“The preamble of independent claim 12 is amended to recite “[a] system to generate a visual representation.” It then follows that recitation of “[t[he system” in claims 13-16 and 18-20 is to generate a visual representation.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The preamble of claim 12 states “A system to generate a visual representation, the system comprising:”. However, successive limitations within claim 12 begin with “a drilling system”, “a logging system”, & etc. Therefore, in dependent claims references to “the system” without modifiers could be any of the systems previously mentioned. To overcome 112(b) antecedent basis issues, references to any element would need to be referred to in the same way as in which it was originally introduced.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 line 6 to page 8 line 8, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8 lines 2-3):
“Carpenter fails to disclose or suggest projecting spatial coordinates of a wellhead onto a line of section as limitation (a) requires.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
US 10428642 B2(Carpenter) column 2 lines 14-15: “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a geometric projection along a horizontal well path through a geological formation 100”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “geometric projection along a horizontal well path” is “projecting spatial coordinates of a wellhead onto a line of section”; both require projecting spatial coordinates/(geometric projection) of wells onto a path/(“line”)
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 9 to page 8 line 18, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8 line 9):
“Carpenter fails to disclose or suggest a stratigraphic column as limitation (b) requires.”
& (page 8 lines 12-14):
“Carpenter is silent regarding any type of stratigraphic column as defined in Applicant’s specification. Carpenter’s geological model represents a geological formation that includes rock layers.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
US 10428642 B2(Carpenter) Fig. 1 & column 1 lines 43-44: “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a geometric projection along a horizontal well path through a geological model.”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Fig. 1 shows “a geometric projection” and a geological formation that includes rock layers is a stratigraphic column; Fig. 1 clearly shows stratigraphy of the rock formation, and as the Applicant points out “Carpenter’s geological model represents a geological formation that includes rock layers” (i.e. “a geological formation that includes rock layers” is stratigraphy = the study of rock layers).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 19 to page 9 line 11, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 19-20):
“Carpenter fails to disclose or suggest a petroleum system description as limitation (b) requires.”
& (page 9 lines 4-6):
“Carpenter’s pseudo log would not have taught a petroleum system description that identifies documented occurrences of sampled fluids or known hydrocarbon flow rates like a petroleum system description is defined. ”
Examiner respectfully responds:
US 10428642 B2(Carpenter) Fig. 2-209: “generate pseudo-logs of horizontal well path based on the vertical situational data…” & column 4 lines 33-36: “One or more Production Indices may also be computed from pseudo logs, log predictions obtained from a neural network, logs obtained in the horizontal well and facies.”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a system with pseudo logs and which collects production indices is a “petroleum system that identifies documented occurrences of sampled fluids or known hydrocarbon flow rates” at least since flow rates are a well-known production index.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 12 to page 9 line 18, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 9 lines 16-18):
“Carpenter is silent regarding any type of alignment, let alone aligning the regional stratigraphic column with the petroleum system description (both of which Carpenter fails to disclose or suggest) as claimed. Carpenter is also silent regarding geologic time as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
US 10428642 B2(Carpenter) Fig. 2-201: “generate geological model of formation through which horizontal drill path is drilled”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “geological model … with drill path” in the context of stratigraphy (as evidenced by Fig. 1) necessarily requires “aligning the regional stratigraphic column with the petroleum system description”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 19 to page 11 line 14, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to Rejection under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9 lines 19-20):
“Fitzgerald fails to supply that which Carpenter lacks. Fitzgerald fails to disclose or suggest at least limitations (a)-(d).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Fitzgerald was not relied upon to teach (a)-(d), but rather for teaching “identifying, using an interpretation workstation, a drilling target within the subsurface region of interest based, on the visual representation; updating the wellbore path to intersect the drilling target; and updating an orientation of the drill bit based on the updated wellbore path.”
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10428642 B2 (previously cited, henceforth Carpenter) in view of US 11162356 B2 (previously cited, henceforth Fitzgerald).
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter teaches a method of generating a visual representation the method comprising: iteratively: drilling, using a drilling system comprising a drill bit (drilling of the substantially horizontal well 105 as seen in Fig. 1 necessarily requires the use of a drill bit), a portion of a wellbore among a plurality of wellbores (Fig. 1-120 through 125, column 3 lines 21-23: “FIG. 1 illustrates six locations 110-115 along the horizontal well that are represented by both horizontal situational data 120-125 and vertical situational data 130-135”, plurality of wellbores/(“vertical situational data 130-135”)) through a subsurface region of interest guided by a wellbore path (Fig. 1-105: “horizontal well”, column 2 lines 24-25: “A substantially horizontal well 105 is drilled through the geological formation 100.”); obtaining, using a logging system (the pseudo-logs necessarily require that there was a logging system involved) while drilling, a well log and a well test result for the portion of the wellbore (Fig. 2-209: “pseudo-logs of horizontal well path”, column 1 lines 45-47: “FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing an embodiment of a method for transposition of logs onto horizontal wells in accordance with the embodiment of FIG. 1”); projecting spatial coordinates of a wellhead of each of (Fig. 2-209: “well path base on the vertical situational data, the horizontal data”, a well path based on vertical and horizontal data requires coordinates and ‘projecting’ onto a line of section) the plurality of wellbores onto a line of section (Fig. 1-105: “”, column 2 lines 1-4: “A pseudo log may be defined as a geometric projection of an offset well log along a well path through a geological model. If the offset well data are projected along the planned well path parallel to the geology, a predicted or pseudo log may be created.”, projecting onto line of section/(“ geometric projection … along a well path”)); for each of the plurality of wellbores, determining a stratigraphic column (column 2 lines 60-62: “Referring to FIG. 1, the geological model may be represented by the different illustrated layers of the formation 100.”, stratigraphic column/(“layers of the formation”)) and a petroleum system description using the well log and the well test result (Fig. 2-209: “pseudo-logs of horizontal well path”); determining a regional stratigraphic column based on the stratigraphic column for the plurality of wellbores and a depth interval (Fig. 3-314: “subsurface geological formations”, column 6 lines 9-13: “During the upward trip, at a series of depths, the instruments (e.g., transducers and receivers) included in the tool body 320 may be used to perform measurements on the subsurface geological formations 314 adjacent the borehole 312 (and the tool body 320)”); generating the visual representation comprising aligning the regional stratigraphic column with the petroleum system description for the plurality of wellbores by determining a geologic time (column 2 lines 55-62: “Referring to the flowchart of FIG. 2, in block 201, a geological model is generated for the geological formation through which the horizontal well path is drilled. As described previously, this model describes the geophysical and geological attributes of the portion of the Earth's crust that the horizontal well is drilled or will be drilled. Referring to FIG. 1, the geological model may be represented by the different illustrated layers of the formation 100.”, aligning is done by matching layers from each well to their corresponding location in the other wells as in Fig. 1, POSITA knows the layers represent different geologic time periods) within the regional stratigraphic column that the petroleum system description is true for; displaying the visual representation on a display device (column 7 lines 21-23: “In some embodiments, a system 364, 464 may include a display 496 to present geological data as discussed previously.”);
Carpenter does not as explicitly teach identifying, using an interpretation workstation, a drilling target within the subsurface region of interest based, on the visual representation; updating the wellbore path to intersect the drilling target; and updating an orientation of the drill bit based on the updated wellbore path.
Fitzgerald teaches identifying, using an interpretation workstation (Fig. 8 is a display and necessarily requires a workstation), a drilling target within the subsurface region of interest based, on the visual representation; updating the wellbore path to intersect the drilling target (Fig. 2-280: “target area”, column 7 lines 26-29: “A target area 280 specified in the drill plan may be located in strata layer 272-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Target area 280 may represent a desired endpoint of borehole 106, such as a hydrocarbon producing area indicated by strata layer 272-1”); and updating an orientation of the drill bit based on the updated wellbore path (Fig. 7-732: “Calculate Trajectory Misfit” & Fig. 7-736: “corrective action” , column 1 lines 60-61: “FIG. 7 is a depiction of a steering control process used by the rig control systems”, Fig. 10-1014: “Geosteering Control”,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Carpenter with the teachings of Fitzgerald. One would add to the “Transposition Of Logs Onto Horizontal Wells” of Carpenter the “Downhole Display” of Fitzgerald. The motivation would have been that the inventive concept of Carpenter would enable a user to accurately find target areas and the inventive concept of Fitzgerald would then allow one to quickly reach the target areas (see Fitzgerald column 25 lines 15-21: “allowing a user to easily and quickly manipulate the data via the downhole display provided by the downhole display system is advantageous because it minimizes the time required and increases the likelihood of a correct correlation of downhole data, thus allowing for faster and better decisions and adjustments in essentially real time during drilling.”)
Regarding claim 2, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 1,
Fitzgerald further teaches further comprising planning the wellbore path, using a wellbore path planning system(Fig. 7-732: “calculate trajectory misfit”, Fig. 7-734: “corrective action to minimize misfit”), to intersect the drilling target (Fig. 2-106, Fig. 2-280, column 7 lines 26-29: “A target area 280 specified in the drill plan may be located in strata layer 272-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Target area 280 may represent a desired endpoint of borehole 106, such as a hydrocarbon producing area indicated by strata layer 272-1”).
Regarding claim 4, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 1,
Carpenter further teaches wherein projecting the spatial coordinates of the wellhead of each of the plurality of wellbores comprises: interrogating a spatial map of the plurality of wellbores penetrating the subsurface region of interest (column 3 lines 36-41: “This may be accomplished by mapping the collected geological data to each particular location of a plurality of locations 110-115 along the horizontal well path 105 using the horizontal situational data 120-125 that is associated with the vertical situational data 130-135”); forming the line of section on the spatial map (Fig. 1-105, In Fig. 1 the line 105 is equivalent to the “line of section” but seen from a side view); and projecting the spatial coordinates of the wellhead from at least two (Fig. 2-110 through 115 and Fig. 2-120 through 125, column 3 lines 37-41: “collected geological data to each particular location of a plurality of locations 110-115 along the horizontal well path 105 using the horizontal situational data 120-125 that is associated with the vertical situational data 130-135”, system uses data from multiple wellbores/(“plurality of locations”)) of the plurality of wellbores onto the line of section (column 2 line 67-colunmn 3 line 5: “The situational data may be defined as some type of indication representative of a particular location in the well. For the vertical well, the situational data may be representative of a particular depth. For the horizontal well, the situational data may be representative of a particular horizontal location.”, system determines locations of the plurality of wellbores).
Regarding claim 5, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 4,
Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the spatial map further comprises a reservoir indicating attribute overlaid on the spatial map (column 7 lines 26-29: “A target area 280 specified in the drill plan may be located in strata layer 272-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Target area 280 may represent a desired endpoint of borehole 106, such as a hydrocarbon producing area indicated by strata layer 272-1”).
Regarding claim 7, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 1,
Carpenter further teaches wherein the well test result comprises a hydrocarbon flow rate (column 4 lines 33-35: “One or more Production Indices may also be computed from pseudo logs, log predictions obtained from a neural network, logs obtained in the horizontal well and facies.”, production indices would include hydrocarbon flow rate).
Regarding claim 9, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 1,
Carpenter further teaches wherein generating the visual representation comprises: partitioning the regional stratigraphic column aligned with the petroleum system description into a series of rows that categorizes a petroleum system formation (Fig. 1-103: “gamma ray plot”, gamma ray plot characterizes rows in the graph where rows correspond to geographic layers ); and for each of the plurality of wellbores: labeling [[each]] the petroleum system description using a plurality of differentiators(Fig. 1-120 through 125, these labels differentiate the plurality of vertical wellbores).
Regarding claim 10, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 9,
Carpenter further teaches wherein the series of rows that categorizes the petroleum system formation are positioned in order from a starting wellhead location on the line of section to an ending wellhead location on the line of section (Fig. 1-120 to Fig. 1-125: “”, column 3 lines 21-23: “six locations 110-115 along the horizontal well that are represented by both horizontal situational data 120-125 and vertical situational data 130-135”, system has a series of rows representing locations from a starting location to ending location).
Regarding claim 11, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the method of claim 1,
Carpenter further teaches wherein identifying the drilling target further comprises interrogating the visual representation to identify a drilling target pattern based on a plurality of differentiators (column 4 lines 3-8: “The following methodology may be used to engineer a completion process. In a completion process, stages are defined and, within each stage, locations to perforate are selected. Stages need not be contiguous (e.g., gaps may exist between stages). After the perforations are shot for a stage, the well may be fractured.”, system determines A drilling target pattern/(“locations to perforate”) to find oil or gas).
Regarding claim 12, Carpenter teaches system to generate a visual representation, the system comprising: iteratively: a drilling system comprising a drill bit (drilling of the substantially horizontal well 105 as seen in Fig. 1 necessarily requires the use of a drill bit) and configured to drill a portion of a wellbore among a plurality of wellbores (Fig. 1-120 through 125, column 3 lines 21-23: “FIG. 1 illustrates six locations 110-115 along the horizontal well that are represented by both horizontal situational data 120-125 and vertical situational data 130-135”, plurality of wellbores/(“vertical situational data 130-135”)) through a subsurface region of interest guided by a wellbore path (Fig. 1-105: “horizontal well”, column 2 lines 24-25: “A substantially horizontal well 105 is drilled through the geological formation 100.”); a logging system (the pseudo-logs necessarily require that there was a logging system involved) configured to obtain, while drilling, a well log and a well test result for the portion of the wellbore (Fig. 2-209: “pseudo-logs of horizontal well path”, column 1 lines 45-47: “FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing an embodiment of a method for transposition of logs onto horizontal wells in accordance with the embodiment of FIG. 1”); a computer processor (Fig. 4-354: workstation, a workstation necessarily has a processor) configured to: project spatial coordinates of a wellhead of each of (Fig. 2-209: “well path base on the vertical situational data, the horizontal data”, a well path based on vertical and horizontal data requires coordinates and ‘projecting’ onto a line of section) the plurality of wellbores onto a line of section (Fig. 1-105: “”, column 2 lines 1-4: “A pseudo log may be defined as a geometric projection of an offset well log along a well path through a geological model. If the offset well data are projected along the planned well path parallel to the geology, a predicted or pseudo log may be created.”, projecting onto line of section/(“ geometric projection … along a well path”)), , determine a stratigraphic column (column 2 lines 60-62: “Referring to FIG. 1, the geological model may be represented by the different illustrated layers of the formation 100.”, stratigraphic column/(“layers of the formation”)) and a petroleum system description for each of the plurality of wellbores using the well log and the well test result (Fig. 2-209: “pseudo-logs of horizontal well path”), determine a regional stratigraphic column based on the stratigraphic column for the plurality of wellbores and a depth interval (Fig. 3-314: “subsurface geological formations”, column 6 lines 9-13: “During the upward trip, at a series of depths, the instruments (e.g., transducers and receivers) included in the tool body 320 may be used to perform measurements on the subsurface geological formations 314 adjacent the borehole 312 (and the tool body 320)”), generate a visual representation comprising aligning the regional stratigraphic column with the petroleum system description for the plurality of wellbores by determining a geologic time (column 2 lines 55-62: “Referring to the flowchart of FIG. 2, in block 201, a geological model is generated for the geological formation through which the horizontal well path is drilled. As described previously, this model describes the geophysical and geological attributes of the portion of the Earth's crust that the horizontal well is drilled or will be drilled. Referring to FIG. 1, the geological model may be represented by the different illustrated layers of the formation 100.”, aligning is done by matching layers from each well to their corresponding location in the other wells as in Fig. 1, POSITA knows the layers represent different geologic time periods) within the regional stratigraphic column that the petroleum system description is true for, and display the visual representation on a display device (column 7 lines 21-23: “In some embodiments, a system 364, 464 may include a display 496 to present geological data as discussed previously.”);
Carpenter does not as explicitly teach and an interpretation workstation configured to identify a drilling target within the subsurface region of interest based, on the visual representation, wherein the drilling system is further configured to: update the wellbore path to intersect the drilling target, and update an orientation of the drill bit based on the updated wellbore path.
Fitzgerald teaches and an interpretation workstation (Fig. 8 is a display and necessarily requires a workstation) configured to identify a drilling target within the subsurface region of interest based, on the visual representation, wherein the drilling system is further configured to: update the wellbore path to intersect the drilling target (Fig. 2-280: “target area”, column 7 lines 26-29: “A target area 280 specified in the drill plan may be located in strata layer 272-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Target area 280 may represent a desired endpoint of borehole 106, such as a hydrocarbon producing area indicated by strata layer 272-1”), and update an orientation of the drill bit based on the updated wellbore path (Fig. 7-732: “Calculate Trajectory Misfit” & Fig. 7-736: “corrective action” , column 1 lines 60-61: “FIG. 7 is a depiction of a steering control process used by the rig control systems”, Fig. 10-1014: “Geosteering Control”,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Carpenter with the teachings of Fitzgerald. One would add to the “Transposition Of Logs Onto Horizontal Wells” of Carpenter the “Downhole Display” of Fitzgerald. The motivation would have been that the inventive concept of Carpenter would enable a user to accurately find target areas and the inventive concept of Fitzgerald would then allow one to quickly reach the target areas (see Fitzgerald column 25 lines 15-21: “allowing a user to easily and quickly manipulate the data via the downhole display provided by the downhole display system is advantageous because it minimizes the time required and increases the likelihood of a correct correlation of downhole data, thus allowing for faster and better decisions and adjustments in essentially real time during drilling.”).
Regarding claim 13, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 12,
Fitzgerald further teaches further comprising: a wellbore path planning system (Fig. 7-732: “calculate trajectory misfit”, Fig. 7-734: “corrective action to minimize misfit”) configured to plan the wellbore path to intersect the drilling target (Fig. 2-106, Fig. 2-280, column 7 lines 26-29: “A target area 280 specified in the drill plan may be located in strata layer 272-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Target area 280 may represent a desired endpoint of borehole 106, such as a hydrocarbon producing area indicated by strata layer 272-1”).
Regarding claim 14, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 12,
Carpenter further teaches wherein projecting the spatial coordinates of the wellhead of each of the plurality of wellbores comprises: interrogating a spatial map of the plurality of wellbores penetrating the subsurface region of interest (column 3 lines 36-41: “This may be accomplished by mapping the collected geological data to each particular location of a plurality of locations 110-115 along the horizontal well path 105 using the horizontal situational data 120-125 that is associated with the vertical situational data 130-135”); forming the line of section on the spatial map (Fig. 1-105, In Fig. 1 the line 105 is equivalent to the “line of section” but seen from a side view); and projecting the spatial coordinates of the wellhead from at least two (Fig. 2-110 through 115 and Fig. 2-120 through 125, column 3 lines 37-41: “collected geological data to each particular location of a plurality of locations 110-115 along the horizontal well path 105 using the horizontal situational data 120-125 that is associated with the vertical situational data 130-135”, system uses data from multiple wellbores/(“plurality of locations”)) of the plurality of wellbores onto the line of section (column 2 line 67-colunmn 3 line 5: “The situational data may be defined as some type of indication representative of a particular location in the well. For the vertical well, the situational data may be representative of a particular depth. For the horizontal well, the situational data may be representative of a particular horizontal location.”, system determines locations of the plurality of wellbores).
Regarding claim 15, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 14,
Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the spatial map further comprises a reservoir indicating attribute overlaid on the spatial map (column 7 lines 26-29: “A target area 280 specified in the drill plan may be located in strata layer 272-1 as shown in FIG. 2. Target area 280 may represent a desired endpoint of borehole 106, such as a hydrocarbon producing area indicated by strata layer 272-1”).
Regarding claim 16, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 12,
Carpenter further teaches wherein the well test result comprises a hydrocarbon flow rate (column 4 lines 33-35: “One or more Production Indices may also be computed from pseudo logs, log predictions obtained from a neural network, logs obtained in the horizontal well and facies.”, production indices would include hydrocarbon flow rate).
Regarding claim 18, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 12,
Carpenter further teaches wherein generating the visual representation comprises: partitioning the regional stratigraphic column aligned with the petroleum system description into a series of rows that categorizes a petroleum system formation (Fig. 1-103: “gamma ray plot”, gamma ray plot characterizes rows in the graph where rows correspond to geographic layers ); and for each of the plurality of wellbores: labeling the petroleum system description using a plurality of differentiators (Fig. 1-120 through 125, these labels differentiate the plurality of vertical wellbores).
Regarding claim 19, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 18,
Carpenter further teaches wherein the series of rows that categorizes the petroleum system formation are positioned in order from a starting wellhead location on the line of section to an ending wellhead location on the line of section (Fig. 1-120 to Fig. 1-125: “”, column 3 lines 21-23: “six locations 110-115 along the horizontal well that are represented by both horizontal situational data 120-125 and vertical situational data 130-135”, system has a series of rows representing locations from a starting location to ending location).
Regarding claim 20, Carpenter in view of Fitzgerald teaches the system of claim 12,
Carpenter further teaches wherein identifying the drilling target further comprises interrogating the visual representation to identify a drilling target pattern based on a plurality of differentiators (column 4 lines 3-8: “The following methodology may be used to engineer a completion process. In a completion process, stages are defined and, within each stage, locations to perforate are selected. Stages need not be contiguous (e.g., gaps may exist between stages). After the perforations are shot for a stage, the well may be fractured.”, system determines A drilling target pattern/(“locations to perforate”) to find oil or gas).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10794169 B2 "Systems, Devices, And Methods For Generating Drilling Windows" (Gillan) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2-264: "3D visualization".
US 6209640 B1 "Method Of Obtaining Improved Geophysical Information About Earth Formations" (Reimers) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 12631784 B2 "Automatic Model Selection Through Machine Learning" (Hong) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 15.
US 10732310 B2 "Seismic Attributes Derived From The Relative Geological Age Property Of A Volume-based Model" (Souche) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 5.
US 7054753 B1 "Method Of Locating Oil And Gas Exploration Prospects By Data Visualization And Organization" (Williams) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights