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 .
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. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG 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).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 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- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
constructing a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid for the reservoir simulation; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid in a reservoir simulation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by identifying the appropriate drainage region for the application and indicating such a region by writing down the pertinent information on paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
constructing a drainage pseudo-pressure table for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to a drainage pseudo pressure table corresponding to the grid blocks. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by writing corresponding values of drainage pseudo pressure values for each grid block into a table on a piece of paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
calculating, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure table, a drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure table so as to make a judgement of a drainage pseudo pressure factor for each of the grid blocks. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites the mathematical calculation of a pressure factor, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
performing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, the reservoir simulation of the reservoir to generate a reservoir simulation result; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure factor for each grid block in the drainage region and further performing an analysis (as a simulation) so as to make a judgement of a result. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
wherein the drainage pseudo-pressure factor is used in the reservoir simulation to model a condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the pseudo pressure factor during the analysis (simulation) process of a condensate banking phenomenon to make judgements on the corresponding behavior. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
performing, based on the reservoir simulation result, well production of the reservoir,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to the words “apply it” with regards to the values obtained as part of the judicial exception (based on the simulation result) and also identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a given field of use.
The courts have found that merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which would necessitate further evaluation to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely stating the words “apply it” with the judicial exception and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is directed to the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-14 are directed to a reservoir simulator with a computer processor and memory storing instructions which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
constructing a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid for the reservoir simulation;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid in a reservoir simulation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by identifying the appropriate drainage region for the application and indicating such a region by writing down the pertinent information on paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
constructing a drainage pseudo-pressure table for each grid block m the wellbore drainage region. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to a drainage pseudo pressure table corresponding to the grid blocks. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by writing corresponding values of drainage pseudo pressure values for each grid block into a table on a piece of paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
calculating, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure table, a drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure table so as to make a judgement of a drainage pseudo pressure factor for each of the grid blocks. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites the mathematical calculation of a pressure factor, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
performing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, the reservoir simulation of the reservoir to generate a reservoir simulation result; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure factor for each grid block in the drainage region and further performing an analysis (as a simulation) so as to make a judgement of a result. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
facilitating, based on the reservoir simulation result, well production of the reservoir, Under broadest reasonably interpretation, the term “facilitating” may entail making a process easier. With such an interpretation, the claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making observations and judgments about the well production process of the reservoir, based on evaluations of reservoir simulation results, which enable a simplified or streamlined process. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
wherein the drainage pseudo-pressure factor is used in the reservoir simulation to model a condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the pseudo pressure factor during the analysis (simulation) process of a condensate banking phenomenon to make judgements on the corresponding behavior. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a computer processor; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components as a tool by which to apply the judicial exception
memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components as a tool by which to apply the judicial exception
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Additional elements identified and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
constructing a wellbore drainage region for the wellbore in a reservoir grid for the reservoir simulation; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid in a reservoir simulation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by identifying the appropriate drainage region for the application and indicating such a region by writing down the pertinent information on paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
constructing a drainage pseudo-pressure table for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; . The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to a drainage pseudo pressure table corresponding to the grid blocks. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by writing corresponding values of drainage pseudo pressure values for each grid block into a table on a piece of paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
calculating, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure table, a drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure table so as to make a judgement of a drainage pseudo pressure factor for each of the grid blocks. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites the mathematical calculation of a pressure factor, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
performing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, the reservoir simulation of the reservoir to generate a reservoir simulation result; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure factor for each grid block in the drainage region and further performing an analysis (as a simulation) so as to make a judgement of a result. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
facilitating, based on the reservoir simulation result, well production of the reservoir,. Under broadest reasonably interpretation, the term “facilitating” may entail making a process easier. With such an interpretation, the claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making observations and judgments about the well production process of the reservoir, based on evaluations of reservoir simulation results, which enable a simplified or streamlined process. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
wherein the drainage pseudo-pressure factor is used in the reservoir simulation to model a condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the pseudo pressure factor during the analysis (simulation) process of a condensate banking phenomenon to make judgements on the corresponding behavior. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a wellbore for performing well production of a reservoir; and- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
a reservoir simulator comprising a computer processor and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components as a tool by which to apply the judicial exception
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Additional elements identified and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 additionally recites the limitation computing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor, grid block interface fluxes in the wellbore drainage region to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure factor so as to make a judgement of grid block interface flux values (such as the rates of physical quantities between two distinct grid block domains) that would resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block within a user specified cut off distance, and which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation (via traversal) over the reservoir grid according to a cutoff distance provided by a user so as to make a final judgement as to the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a given field of user. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to the general linkage of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified cut off flux fraction, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a user-specified cut off flux fraction so as to make the subsequent evaluation of traversing the reservoir grid for the eventual judgement of the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites wherein the flux fraction corresponds to a ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, wherein a first grid block associated with a first flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off flux fraction is included in the well bore drainage region, and wherein a second grid block associated with a second flux fraction less than the user specified cut off flux fraction is excluded from the well bore drainage region in which these limitations all recite the mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships, whereby values are being compared to other values (ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off, flux fraction less than the user specified cut off). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such comparisons between values may be derived as a judgement in the human mind and are part of the mental process for determining the bounds of the wellbore drainage region constructed as a mental process, as given previously. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir,. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation is merely describing an association of the perforated grid block to a reservoir wellbore. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified minimum drainage level, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the user specified minimum drainage level so as to make a further evaluation by traversing the reservoir grid to ultimately make a judgement as to the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir, and wherein the drainage level of a grid block corresponds to a hop-distance of the grid block from the perforated grid block.. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitations merely describe associations of the perforated grid block to a reservoir wellbore and the association of the drainage level to a hop distance. The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation computing a pressure versus total generalized molar mobility
(
λ
T
G
M
M
)
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table., which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation and judgement for an appropriate pressure v. total generalized molar mobility value pair for the entries of the pseudo pressure table. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation computing, for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, a pseudo-pressure integral based on the pressure versus
λ
T
G
M
M
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo-pressure table entries and performing integrations to obtain values for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region. Integration is the mathematical concept of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, integrals may be performed based on such evaluations by a human being in the mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation computing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor, grid block interface fluxes in the wellbore drainage region to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure factor so as to make a judgement of grid block interface flux values (such as the rates of physical quantities between two distinct grid block domains) that would resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid
from a perforated grid block within a user specified cut off distance, and, which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation (via traversal) over the reservoir grid according to a cutoff distance provided by a user so as to make a final judgement as to the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a given field of user. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to the general linkage of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified cut off flux fraction, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a user-specified cut off flux fraction so as to make the subsequent evaluation of traversing the reservoir grid for the eventual judgement of the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites wherein the flux fraction corresponds to a ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, wherein a first grid block associated with a first flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off flux fraction is included in the well bore drainage region, and wherein a second grid block associated with a second flux fraction less than the user specified cut off flux fraction is excluded from the well bore drainage region in which these limitations all recite the mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships, whereby values are being compared to other values (ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off, flux fraction less than the user specified cut off). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such comparisons between values may be derived as a judgement in the human mind and are part of the mental process for determining the bounds of the wellbore drainage region constructed as a mental process, as given previously. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir,. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation is merely describing an association of the perforated grid block to a reservoir wellbore. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified minimum drainage level, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the user specified minimum drainage level so as to make a further evaluation by traversing the reservoir grid to ultimately make a judgement as to the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir, and wherein the drainage level of a grid block corresponds to a hop-distance of the grid block from the perforated grid block. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitations merely describe associations of the perforated grid block to a reservoir wellbore and the association of the drainage level to a hop distance. The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation computing a pressure versus total generalized molar mobility
(
λ
T
G
M
M
)
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation and judgement for an appropriate pressure v. total generalized molar mobility value pair for the entries of the pseudo pressure table. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation computing, for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, a pseudo-pressure integral based on the pressure versus
λ
T
G
M
M
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo-pressure table entries and performing integrations to obtain values for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region. Integration is the mathematical concept of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, integrals may be performed based on such evaluations by a human being in the mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation computing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor, grid block interface fluxes in the wellbore drainage region to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo pressure factor so as to make a judgement of grid block interface flux values (such as the rates of physical quantities between two distinct grid block domains) that would resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block within a user specified cut off distance, and which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation (via traversal) over the reservoir grid according to a cutoff distance provided by a user so as to make a final judgement as to the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir.. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a given field of user. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to the general linkage of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified cut off flux fraction, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a user-specified cut off flux fraction so as to make the subsequent evaluation of traversing the reservoir grid for the eventual judgement of the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites wherein the flux fraction corresponds to a ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, wherein a first grid block associated with a first flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off flux fraction is included in the well bore drainage region, and wherein a second grid block associated with a second flux fraction less than the user specified cut off flux fraction is excluded from the well bore drainage region in which these limitations all recite the mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships, whereby values are being compared to other values (ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off, flux fraction less than the user specified cut off). Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, such comparisons between values may be derived as a judgement in the human mind and are part of the mental process for determining the bounds of the wellbore drainage region constructed as a mental process, as given previously. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir,. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation is merely describing an association of the perforated grid block to a reservoir wellbore. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified minimum drainage level which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the user specified minimum drainage level so as to make a further evaluation by traversing the reservoir grid to ultimately make a judgement as to the wellbore drainage region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir, and wherein the drainage level of a grid block corresponds to a hop-distance of the grid block from the perforated grid block. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitations merely describe associations of the perforated grid block to a reservoir wellbore and the association of the drainage level to a hop distance. The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation wherein constructing the drainage pseudo-pressure table comprises computing a pressure versus total generalized molar mobility
(
λ
T
G
M
M
)
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table, and which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation and judgement for an appropriate pressure v. total generalized molar mobility value pair for the entries of the pseudo pressure table. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim further recites wherein calculating the drainage pseudo-pressure factor comprises computing, for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, a pseudo-pressure integral based on the pressure versus
λ
T
G
M
M
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the drainage pseudo-pressure table entries and performing integrations to obtain values for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region. Integration is the mathematical concept of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Furthermore, integrals may be performed based on such evaluations by a human being in the mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dogru et al (US Patent Publication Number US 2022/0090496 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dogru.
Regarding claim 1, Dogru discloses A method to perform reservoir simulation of a reservoir, comprising: ((Dogru, ¶15) "In particular, some embodiments are directed to performing reservoir simulations for a gas condensate reservoir.")
constructing a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid for the reservoir simulation; ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model. More specifically, the selected reservoir properties may be static grid properties coming from model data, e.g., a fine-grid model for a reservoir region of interest. Additionally, in some embodiments, the coarse grid model includes a wellbore radial grid to determine a skin factor value for one or more time steps within a reservoir simulation. For more information on using the wellbore radial grid, see Blocks 430-490 and the accompanying description below.") Examiner note: when the claim is read in light of the specification, the term “drainage region for a wellbore” is described as the area near to the wellbore (See Specification ¶39 “The local grid refinement (LGR) using fine grids in near wellbore (drainage) regions may be used to reduce pressure dependence of upstream mobility.”). The disclosure of Dogru references modeling a “reservoir region of interest” in a simulation, wherein the dynamics of the simulation are described as being pertinent to a region around/near the wellbore ((Dogru, ¶15-16) “In general, embodiments of the disclosure include systems and methods for simulating a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir. In particular, some embodiments are directed to performing reservoir simulations for a gas condensate reservoir. [[…]] The lower pressure around a wellbore may cause liquid phase hydrocarbon (i.e., "oil") to condense from the natural-gas, and accumulate in a region around the wellbore, called the oil condensation zone.”), thereby indicating that the region of interest disclosed by Dogru is reasonably equivalent to the drainage region of the claim. See also Dogru Fig. 2B depicting reservoir grid model.
constructing a drainage pseudo-pressure table for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; ((Dogru, ¶3) "The method may further determine, by the computer processor and during a first time step within an iterative simulation process, various pseudo-pressure values based on the model data."); ((Dogru, ¶47) "In Block 440, a pressure distribution is determined in wellbore radial grid portions using various pseudo-pressure values in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, reservoir pressure may be calculated from the pseudo-pressure using an inverse lookup table generated from the function G-1. In particular, an inverse lookup table may provide pre-tabulated values of reservoir pressure corresponding to different pseudo-pressure values.")
calculating, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure table, a drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; ((Dogru, ¶47) "In some embodiments, inverse lookup tables may provide functionality for interpolating between adjacent values of pseudo pressure to determine reservoir pressure distribution."); ((Dogru, ¶48) "In Block 450, various skin factor values are determined for various wellbore radial grid portions in a reservoir region of interest in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments, for example, the skin factor for each wellbore radial grid portion may be calculated for the current time step using the following equation: [[…]] (Equation 4a) where r1 is the exterior radius of the j-th portion in a well bore radial grid, rw is the radius of the production wellbore, and In denotes the natural logarithm operator. Lg.max denotes the gas mobility outside of the oil condensation zone beyond the dewpoint radius, and LgJ may be determined using the following equation: [[…]] (Equation 4b) where k,,/P), μ(p), and ~g(p) is the pressure dependent relative gas permeability, the pressure dependent gas viscosity, and the pressure dependent gas formation factor, respectively, for reservoir pressures corresponding to the j-th portion in a wellbore radial grid."); See also Figure 4
performing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, the reservoir simulation of the reservoir to generate a reservoir simulation result; and ((Dogru, ¶56) "Keeping with FIG. 6, the reservoir simulator determines multiple simulation values at the initial time (612). Here, as January 2019 is the initial time (612) for the reservoir simulation, the reservoir simulator determines skin factor values A (632) and pseudo-pressure values A ( 633) for the reservoir simulation during January 2019 (631). Accordingly, based on these values (632, 633) as well as model data, the reservoir simulation outputs a gas production rate A (634) and bottom-hole pressure values A (635) for the reservoir simulation during January 2019 (631). Afterwards, the reservoir simulator proceeds to increment the simulation time to the next time step, i.e., at February 2019. At the reservoir simulation during February 2019 (641), the reservoir simulator again determines skin factor values (i.e., skin factor values B (642)) and pseudo-pressure values (i.e., pseudo-pressure values B (643)) in order to determine a gas production rate B (644) and bottom-hole pressure values B (645). After updating the time step, the reservoir simulator at the reservoir simulation during March 2019 (651) determines the next skin factor values (i.e., skin factor values C (652)) and the next pseudo-pressure values (i.e., pseudo pressure values C (653)) in order to determine a gas production rate C (654) and bottom-hole pressure values C (655). Finally, the reservoir simulation ends (690)."). See also Dogru, Figure 6.
performing, based on the reservoir simulation result, well production of the reservoir, ((Dogru, ¶50) "In Block 460, a gas production rate is determined for one or more production wells in a reservoir region of interest using various skin factor values and a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments."); ((Dogru, ¶19) "In some embodiments, the well system (106) includes a wellbore (120), a well sub-surface system (122), a well surface system (124), and a well control system ("control system") (126). The control system (126) may control various operations of the well system (106), such as well production operations, well completion operations, well maintenance operations, and reservoir monitoring, assessment and development operations. In some embodiments, the control system (126) includes a computer that is the same as or similar to that of computer (702) described below in FIG. 7 and the accompanying description.")
wherein the drainage pseudo-pressure factor is used in the reservoir simulation to model a condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region. ((Dogru, ¶31) "At reservoir locations where the pressure falls below the dewpoint pressure (308), oil may condense from the oil vapor as a liquid. The condensed oil saturation value at a given pressure may be indicated by the condensed oil saturation curve (302)."); ((Dogru, ¶16) " As oil may be less mobile than gas, oil may have greater difficulty flowing through rock pores. Furthermore, a build-up of condensed oil in a region near a wellbore may also block paths for gas through the rock pores. In this way, the condensed oil may act as a "skin effect" around the wellbore reducing the rate of natural-gas production. This skin effect may be quantified by a "skin factor" which may be used when simulating a gas condensate reservoir. Thus, the reservoir pressure around a wellbore changes over time as production of natural-gas proceeds at a production well. As such, the skin factor may also change over time, thereby making the skin factor dynamic within a reservoir simulation.")
Regarding claim 3, Dogru discloses The method of claim 1, as stated previously and further discloses
wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block within a user specified cut off distance, and The grid model is created by the extension of a wellbore radial grid from a wellbore center so as to create an exterior boundary ((Dogru, ¶42) " Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 shows a map view of a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, a coarse grid model (514) may be a portion of a reservoir grid model that includes a production wellbore (502) and a wellbore radial grid (500) surrounding the production wellbore (502). For example, the wellbore radial grid (500) may include various wellbore radial grid portions (512) based on different radii from a wellbore center (504). As shown, the wellbore radial grid portions (512) may be defined using various radial rings emanating from the wellbore center (504). As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500). "). The grid model is generated according to the radial grid portions and model data ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model. "). The parameter dimensions that characterize the reservoir region of interest are derived upon user-specified values in conjunction with the simulation initialization ((Dogru, ¶55) " As shown in FIG. the simulation initialization 6, function (610) uses reservoir parameter dimensions (601) (e.g., to define a reservoir region of interest), rock and fluid property data (602), relative permeability curves (603), and well production data (604) as inputs for a reservoir simulation. Likewise, the reservoir simulator also specifies various simulation parameters, such as a time step size (611), an initial time (612) of the reservoir simulation, and a grid size (613), for executing the reservoir simulation. ")
wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir. See Dogru Figure 5. ((Dogru, ¶42) "Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 shows a map view of a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, a coarse grid model (514) may be a portion of a reservoir grid model that includes a production wellbore (502) and a wellbore radial grid (500) surrounding the production wellbore (502). For example, the wellbore radial grid (500) may include various wellbore radial grid portions (512) based on different radii from a wellbore center (504). As shown, the wellbore radial grid portions (512) may be defined using various radial rings emanating from the wellbore center (504). As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500). The wellbore radial grid (500) may be completely enclosed within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502). Thus, the reservoir pressure at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (510) may be the reservoir pressure within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502). Likewise, the coarse grid model (514) may be Cartesian with boundaries crossing one another orthogonally.")
Regarding claim 5, Dogru discloses The method of claim 1, as stated previously and further discloses wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified minimum drainage level, The wellbore radial grid to be modeled is created according to an exterior boundary that characterizes the grid ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, .. , 5."); ((Dogru, ¶42) "As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500)."). The coarse grid model is generated to include the radial grid portions according to selected properties ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model."). The reservoir parameter dimensions that define the reservoir region of interest are given as user inputs to the simulation ((Dogru, ¶55) "As shown in FIG. 6, the simulation initialization function (610) uses reservoir parameter dimensions (601) (e.g., to define a reservoir region of interest), rock and fluid property data (602), relative permeability curves (603), and well production data (604) as inputs for a reservoir simulation. Likewise, the reservoir simulator also specifies various simulation parameters, such as a time step size (611), an initial time (612) of the reservoir simulation, and a grid size (613), for executing the reservoir simulation"). The exterior boundary may be set according to a grid with a specified number of nodes, wherein the node is being interpreted as a level of the drainage region ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, . . , 5. However, in other embodiments the wellbore radial grid may have more, or fewer nodes, than seven. In various embodiments the wellbore radial grid nodes may be equally, or unequally, spaced in radial distance.")
wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir, and ((Dogru, ¶42) "The wellbore radial grid (500) may be completely enclosed within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502)."); See also Dogru, Figure 5
wherein the drainage level of a grid block corresponds to a hop-distance of the grid block from the perforated grid block. As stated above, the nodes/rings of the radial grid are indicative of a drainage level in the region of the grid model. ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, . . , 5. However, in other embodiments the wellbore radial grid may have more, or fewer nodes, than seven. In various embodiments the wellbore radial grid nodes may be equally, or unequally, spaced in radial distance."). Figure 5 depicts each radial ring/ grid portion corresponding to an increased distance from the wellbore radius containing the wellbore wherein each radius of the grid is an incremental distance from the wellbore. The radial grid portions are contained within the well grid block 516, thereby indicating that the distances/levels are of the grid block.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Dogru discloses A reservoir simulator to perform reservoir simulation of a reservoir, comprising: ((Dogru, ¶25) "In some embodiments, the well system (106) includes a reservoir simulator (160). For example, the reservoir simulator (160) may include hardware and/or software with functionality for generating one or more reservoir models regarding the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (104) and/or performing one or more reservoir simulations.")
a computer processor; and ((Dogru, ¶4) "In general, in one aspect, embodiments relate to a system that includes a wellhead coupled to a wellbore and a wellhead sensor coupled to the wellhead, and a reservoir simulator including a computer processor coupled to the wellhead sensor.")
memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for: ((Dogru, ¶25) "In some embodiments, the reservoir simulator (160) may include a computer that is similar to the computer (702) described below with regard to FIG. 7 and the accompanying description."); ((Dogru, ¶63-64) "Generally, the computer processor (705) executes instructions and manipulates data to perform the operations of the computer (702) and any algorithms, methods, functions, processes, flows, and procedures as described in the instant disclosure. The computer (702) also includes a memory (706) that holds data for the computer (702) or other components ( or a combination of both) that can be connected to the network (730). ")
constructing a wellbore drainage region for a wellbore in a reservoir grid for the reservoir simulation; ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model. More specifically, the selected reservoir properties may be static grid properties coming from model data, e.g., a fine-grid model for a reservoir region of interest. Additionally, in some embodiments, the coarse grid model includes a wellbore radial grid to determine a skin factor value for one or more time steps within a reservoir simulation. For more information on using the wellbore radial grid, see Blocks 430-490 and the accompanying description below.") Examiner note: when the claim is read in light of the specification, the term “drainage region for a wellbore” is described as the area near to the wellbore (See Specification ¶39 “The local grid refinement (LGR) using fine grids in near wellbore (drainage) regions may be used to reduce pressure dependence of upstream mobility.”). The disclosure of Dogru references modeling a “reservoir region of interest” in a simulation, wherein the dynamics of the simulation are described as being pertinent to a region around/near the wellbore ((Dogru, ¶15-16) “In general, embodiments of the disclosure include systems and methods for simulating a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir. In particular, some embodiments are directed to performing reservoir simulations for a gas condensate reservoir. [[…]] The lower pressure around a wellbore may cause liquid phase hydrocarbon (i.e., "oil") to condense from the natural-gas, and accumulate in a region around the wellbore, called the oil condensation zone.”), thereby indicating that the region of interest disclosed by Dogru is reasonably equivalent to the drainage region of the claim. See also Dogru Fig. 2B depicting reservoir grid model.
constructing a drainage pseudo-pressure table for each grid block m the wellbore drainage region; ((Dogru, ¶3) "The method may further determine, by the computer processor and during a first time step within an iterative simulation process, various pseudo-pressure values based on the model data."); ((Dogru, ¶47) "In Block 440, a pressure distribution is determined in wellbore radial grid portions using various pseudo-pressure values in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, reservoir pressure may be calculated from the pseudo-pressure using an inverse lookup table generated from the function G-1. In particular, an inverse lookup table may provide pre-tabulated values of reservoir pressure corresponding to different pseudo-pressure values.")
calculating, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure table, a drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; ((Dogru, ¶47) "In some embodiments, inverse lookup tables may provide functionality for interpolating between adjacent values of pseudo pressure to determine reservoir pressure distribution."); ((Dogru, ¶48) "In Block 450, various skin factor values are determined for various wellbore radial grid portions in a reservoir region of interest in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments, for example, the skin factor for each wellbore radial grid portion may be calculated for the current time step using the following equation: [[…]] (Equation 4a) where r1 is the exterior radius of the j-th portion in a well bore radial grid, rw is the radius of the production wellbore, and In denotes the natural logarithm operator. Lg.max denotes the gas mobility outside of the oil condensation zone beyond the dewpoint radius, and LgJ may be determined using the following equation: [[…]] (Equation 4b) where k,,/P), μ(p), and ~g(p) is the pressure dependent relative gas permeability, the pressure dependent gas viscosity, and the pressure dependent gas formation factor, respectively, for reservoir pressures corresponding to the j-th portion in a wellbore radial grid."); See also Figure 4
performing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, the reservoir simulation of the reservoir to generate a reservoir simulation result; and ((Dogru, ¶56) "Keeping with FIG. 6, the reservoir simulator determines multiple simulation values at the initial time (612). Here, as January 2019 is the initial time (612) for the reservoir simulation, the reservoir simulator determines skin factor values A (632) and pseudo-pressure values A ( 633) for the reservoir simulation during January 2019 (631). Accordingly, based on these values (632, 633) as well as model data, the reservoir simulation outputs a gas production rate A (634) and bottom-hole pressure values A (635) for the reservoir simulation during January 2019 (631). Afterwards, the reservoir simulator proceeds to increment the simulation time to the next time step, i.e., at February 2019. At the reservoir simulation during February 2019 (641), the reservoir simulator again determines skin factor values (i.e., skin factor values B (642)) and pseudo-pressure values (i.e., pseudo-pressure values B (643)) in order to determine a gas production rate B (644) and bottom-hole pressure values B (645). After updating the time step, the reservoir simulator at the reservoir simulation during March 2019 (651) determines the next skin factor values (i.e., skin factor values C (652)) and the next pseudo-pressure values (i.e., pseudo pressure values C (653)) in order to determine a gas production rate C (654) and bottom-hole pressure values C (655). Finally, the reservoir simulation ends (690)."). See also Dogru, Figure 6.
facilitating, based on the reservoir simulation result, well production of the reservoir, ((Dogru, ¶50) "In Block 460, a gas production rate is determined for one or more production wells in a reservoir region of interest using various skin factor values and a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments."); ((Dogru, ¶19) "In some embodiments, the well system (106) includes a wellbore (120), a well sub-surface system (122), a well surface system (124), and a well control system ("control system") (126). The control system (126) may control various operations of the well system (106), such as well production operations, well completion operations, well maintenance operations, and reservoir monitoring, assessment and development operations. In some embodiments, the control system (126) includes a computer that is the same as or similar to that of computer (702) described below in FIG. 7 and the accompanying description.")
wherein the drainage pseudo-pressure factor is used in the reservoir simulation to model a condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region. ((Dogru, ¶31) "At reservoir locations where the pressure falls below the dewpoint pressure (308), oil may condense from the oil vapor as a liquid. The condensed oil saturation value at a given pressure may be indicated by the condensed oil saturation curve (302)."); ((Dogru, ¶16) " As oil may be less mobile than gas, oil may have greater difficulty flowing through rock pores. Furthermore, a build-up of condensed oil in a region near a wellbore may also block paths for gas through the rock pores. In this way, the condensed oil may act as a "skin effect" around the wellbore reducing the rate of natural-gas production. This skin effect may be quantified by a "skin factor" which may be used when simulating a gas condensate reservoir. Thus, the reservoir pressure around a wellbore changes over time as production of natural-gas proceeds at a production well. As such, the skin factor may also change over time, thereby making the skin factor dynamic within a reservoir simulation.")
Regarding claim 10, Dogru discloses The reservoir simulator of claim 8, as stated previously and further discloses
wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block within a user specified cut off distance, and The grid model is created by the extension of a wellbore radial grid from a wellbore center so as to create an exterior boundary ((Dogru, ¶42) " Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 shows a map view of a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, a coarse grid model (514) may be a portion of a reservoir grid model that includes a production wellbore (502) and a wellbore radial grid (500) surrounding the production wellbore (502). For example, the wellbore radial grid (500) may include various wellbore radial grid portions (512) based on different radii from a wellbore center (504). As shown, the wellbore radial grid portions (512) may be defined using various radial rings emanating from the wellbore center (504). As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500). "). The grid model is generated according to the radial grid portions and model data ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model. "). The parameter dimensions that characterize the reservoir region of interest are derived upon user-specified values in conjunction with the simulation initialization ((Dogru, ¶55) " As shown in FIG. the simulation initialization 6, function (610) uses reservoir parameter dimensions (601) (e.g., to define a reservoir region of interest), rock and fluid property data (602), relative permeability curves (603), and well production data (604) as inputs for a reservoir simulation. Likewise, the reservoir simulator also specifies various simulation parameters, such as a time step size (611), an initial time (612) of the reservoir simulation, and a grid size (613), for executing the reservoir simulation. ")
wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir. See Dogru Figure 5. ((Dogru, ¶42) "Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 shows a map view of a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, a coarse grid model (514) may be a portion of a reservoir grid model that includes a production wellbore (502) and a wellbore radial grid (500) surrounding the production wellbore (502). For example, the wellbore radial grid (500) may include various wellbore radial grid portions (512) based on different radii from a wellbore center (504). As shown, the wellbore radial grid portions (512) may be defined using various radial rings emanating from the wellbore center (504). As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500). The wellbore radial grid (500) may be completely enclosed within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502). Thus, the reservoir pressure at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (510) may be the reservoir pressure within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502). Likewise, the coarse grid model (514) may be Cartesian with boundaries crossing one another orthogonally.")
Regarding claim 12, Dogru discloses The reservoir simulator of claim 8, as stated previously and further discloses wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified minimum drainage level, The wellbore radial grid to be modeled is created according to an exterior boundary that characterizes the grid ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, .. , 5."); ((Dogru, ¶42) "As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500)."). The coarse grid model is generated to include the radial grid portions according to selected properties ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model."). The reservoir parameter dimensions that define the reservoir region of interest are given as user inputs to the simulation ((Dogru, ¶55) "As shown in FIG. 6, the simulation initialization function (610) uses reservoir parameter dimensions (601) (e.g., to define a reservoir region of interest), rock and fluid property data (602), relative permeability curves (603), and well production data (604) as inputs for a reservoir simulation. Likewise, the reservoir simulator also specifies various simulation parameters, such as a time step size (611), an initial time (612) of the reservoir simulation, and a grid size (613), for executing the reservoir simulation"). The exterior boundary may be set according to a grid with a specified number of nodes, wherein the node is being interpreted as a level of the drainage region ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, . . , 5. However, in other embodiments the wellbore radial grid may have more, or fewer nodes, than seven. In various embodiments the wellbore radial grid nodes may be equally, or unequally, spaced in radial distance.")
wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir, and((Dogru, ¶42) "The wellbore radial grid (500) may be completely enclosed within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502)."); See also Dogru, Figure 5
wherein the drainage level of a grid block corresponds to a hop-distance of the grid block from the perforated grid block. As stated above, the nodes/rings of the radial grid are indicative of a drainage level in the region of the grid model. ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, . . , 5. However, in other embodiments the wellbore radial grid may have more, or fewer nodes, than seven. In various embodiments the wellbore radial grid nodes may be equally, or unequally, spaced in radial distance."). Figure 5 depicts each radial ring/ grid portion corresponding to an increased distance from the wellbore radius containing the wellbore wherein each radius of the grid is an incremental distance from the wellbore. The radial grid portions are contained within the well grid block 516, thereby indicating that the distances/levels are of the grid block.
Regarding claim 15, Dogru discloses A system comprising:
a wellbore for performing well production of a reservoir; and ((Dogru, ¶19) "In some embodiments, the well system (106) includes a wellbore (120), a well sub-surface system (122), a well surface system (124), and a well control system ("control system") (126). The control system (126) may control various operations of the well system (106), such as well production operations, well completion operations, well maintenance operations, and reservoir monitoring, assessment and development operations. In some embodiments, the control system (126) includes a computer that is the same as or similar to that of computer (702) described below in FIG. 7 and the accompanying description. ")
a reservoir simulator comprising a computer processor and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for: ((Dogru, ¶25) " In some embodiments, the well system (106) includes a reservoir simulator (160). For example, the reservoir simulator (160) may include hardware and/or software with functionality for generating one or more reservoir models regarding the hydrocarbon-bearing formation (104) and/or performing one or more reservoir simulations. ")
constructing a wellbore drainage region for the wellbore in a reservoir grid for the reservoir simulation; ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model. More specifically, the selected reservoir properties may be static grid properties coming from model data, e.g., a fine-grid model for a reservoir region of interest. Additionally, in some embodiments, the coarse grid model includes a wellbore radial grid to determine a skin factor value for one or more time steps within a reservoir simulation. For more information on using the wellbore radial grid, see Blocks 430-490 and the accompanying description below.") Examiner note: when the claim is read in light of the specification, the term “drainage region for a wellbore” is described as the area near to the wellbore (See Specification ¶39 “The local grid refinement (LGR) using fine grids in near wellbore (drainage) regions may be used to reduce pressure dependence of upstream mobility.”). The disclosure of Dogru references modeling a “reservoir region of interest” in a simulation, wherein the dynamics of the simulation are described as being pertinent to a region around/near the wellbore ((Dogru, ¶15-16) “In general, embodiments of the disclosure include systems and methods for simulating a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir. In particular, some embodiments are directed to performing reservoir simulations for a gas condensate reservoir. [[…]] The lower pressure around a wellbore may cause liquid phase hydrocarbon (i.e., "oil") to condense from the natural-gas, and accumulate in a region around the wellbore, called the oil condensation zone.”), thereby indicating that the region of interest disclosed by Dogru is reasonably equivalent to the drainage region of the claim. See also Dogru Fig. 2B depicting reservoir grid model.
constructing a drainage pseudo-pressure table for each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; ((Dogru, ¶3) "The method may further determine, by the computer processor and during a first time step within an iterative simulation process, various pseudo-pressure values based on the model data."); ((Dogru, ¶47) "In Block 440, a pressure distribution is determined in wellbore radial grid portions using various pseudo-pressure values in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, reservoir pressure may be calculated from the pseudo-pressure using an inverse lookup table generated from the function G-1. In particular, an inverse lookup table may provide pre-tabulated values of reservoir pressure corresponding to different pseudo-pressure values.")
calculating, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure table, a drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region; ((Dogru, ¶47) "In some embodiments, inverse lookup tables may provide functionality for interpolating between adjacent values of pseudo pressure to determine reservoir pressure distribution."); ((Dogru, ¶48) "In Block 450, various skin factor values are determined for various wellbore radial grid portions in a reservoir region of interest in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments, for example, the skin factor for each wellbore radial grid portion may be calculated for the current time step using the following equation: [[…]] (Equation 4a) where r1 is the exterior radius of the j-th portion in a well bore radial grid, rw is the radius of the production wellbore, and In denotes the natural logarithm operator. Lg.max denotes the gas mobility outside of the oil condensation zone beyond the dewpoint radius, and LgJ may be determined using the following equation: [[…]] (Equation 4b) where k,,/P), μ(p), and ~g(p) is the pressure dependent relative gas permeability, the pressure dependent gas viscosity, and the pressure dependent gas formation factor, respectively, for reservoir pressures corresponding to the j-th portion in a wellbore radial grid."); See also Figure 4
performing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, the reservoir simulation of the reservoir to generate a reservoir simulation result; and ((Dogru, ¶56) "Keeping with FIG. 6, the reservoir simulator determines multiple simulation values at the initial time (612). Here, as January 2019 is the initial time (612) for the reservoir simulation, the reservoir simulator determines skin factor values A (632) and pseudo-pressure values A ( 633) for the reservoir simulation during January 2019 (631). Accordingly, based on these values (632, 633) as well as model data, the reservoir simulation outputs a gas production rate A (634) and bottom-hole pressure values A (635) for the reservoir simulation during January 2019 (631). Afterwards, the reservoir simulator proceeds to increment the simulation time to the next time step, i.e., at February 2019. At the reservoir simulation during February 2019 (641), the reservoir simulator again determines skin factor values (i.e., skin factor values B (642)) and pseudo-pressure values (i.e., pseudo-pressure values B (643)) in order to determine a gas production rate B (644) and bottom-hole pressure values B (645). After updating the time step, the reservoir simulator at the reservoir simulation during March 2019 (651) determines the next skin factor values (i.e., skin factor values C (652)) and the next pseudo-pressure values (i.e., pseudo pressure values C (653)) in order to determine a gas production rate C (654) and bottom-hole pressure values C (655). Finally, the reservoir simulation ends (690)."). See also Dogru, Figure 6.
facilitating, based on the reservoir simulation result, well production of the reservoir, ((Dogru, ¶50) "In Block 460, a gas production rate is determined for one or more production wells in a reservoir region of interest using various skin factor values and a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments."); ((Dogru, ¶19) "In some embodiments, the well system (106) includes a wellbore (120), a well sub-surface system (122), a well surface system (124), and a well control system ("control system") (126). The control system (126) may control various operations of the well system (106), such as well production operations, well completion operations, well maintenance operations, and reservoir monitoring, assessment and development operations. In some embodiments, the control system (126) includes a computer that is the same as or similar to that of computer (702) described below in FIG. 7 and the accompanying description.")
wherein the drainage pseudo-pressure factor is used in the reservoir simulation to model a condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region. ((Dogru, ¶31) "At reservoir locations where the pressure falls below the dewpoint pressure (308), oil may condense from the oil vapor as a liquid. The condensed oil saturation value at a given pressure may be indicated by the condensed oil saturation curve (302)."); ((Dogru, ¶16) " As oil may be less mobile than gas, oil may have greater difficulty flowing through rock pores. Furthermore, a build-up of condensed oil in a region near a wellbore may also block paths for gas through the rock pores. In this way, the condensed oil may act as a "skin effect" around the wellbore reducing the rate of natural-gas production. This skin effect may be quantified by a "skin factor" which may be used when simulating a gas condensate reservoir. Thus, the reservoir pressure around a wellbore changes over time as production of natural-gas proceeds at a production well. As such, the skin factor may also change over time, thereby making the skin factor dynamic within a reservoir simulation.")
Regarding claim 17, Dogru discloses The system of claim 15, as stated previously and further discloses
wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block within a user specified cut off distance, and The grid model is created by the extension of a wellbore radial grid from a wellbore center so as to create an exterior boundary given a corresponding radius, as the distance ((Dogru, ¶42) " Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 shows a map view of a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, a coarse grid model (514) may be a portion of a reservoir grid model that includes a production wellbore (502) and a wellbore radial grid (500) surrounding the production wellbore (502). For example, the wellbore radial grid (500) may include various wellbore radial grid portions (512) based on different radii from a wellbore center (504). As shown, the wellbore radial grid portions (512) may be defined using various radial rings emanating from the wellbore center (504). As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500). "). The grid model is generated according to the radial grid portions and model data ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model."). The parameter dimensions that characterize the reservoir region of interest are derived upon user-specified values in conjunction with the simulation initialization ((Dogru, ¶55) " As shown in FIG. the simulation initialization 6, function (610) uses reservoir parameter dimensions (601) (e.g., to define a reservoir region of interest), rock and fluid property data (602), relative permeability curves (603), and well production data (604) as inputs for a reservoir simulation. Likewise, the reservoir simulator also specifies various simulation parameters, such as a time step size (611), an initial time (612) of the reservoir simulation, and a grid size (613), for executing the reservoir simulation. ")
wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir. See Dogru Figure 5. ((Dogru, ¶42) "Turning to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 shows a map view of a coarse grid model in accordance with one or more embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, a coarse grid model (514) may be a portion of a reservoir grid model that includes a production wellbore (502) and a wellbore radial grid (500) surrounding the production wellbore (502). For example, the wellbore radial grid (500) may include various wellbore radial grid portions (512) based on different radii from a wellbore center (504). As shown, the wellbore radial grid portions (512) may be defined using various radial rings emanating from the wellbore center (504). As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500). The wellbore radial grid (500) may be completely enclosed within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502). Thus, the reservoir pressure at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (510) may be the reservoir pressure within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502). Likewise, the coarse grid model (514) may be Cartesian with boundaries crossing one another orthogonally.")
Regarding claim 19, Dogru discloses The system of claim 15, as stated previously and further discloses wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified minimum drainage level, The wellbore radial grid to be modeled is created according to an exterior boundary that characterizes the grid ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, .. , 5."); ((Dogru, ¶42) "As such, the wellbore radial grid (500) may extend from the wellbore radius (506) to an exterior radius (508) defining an exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid (500)."). The coarse grid model is generated to include the radial grid portions according to selected properties ((Dogru, ¶41) "In Block 410, a coarse grid model is generated that includes wellbore radial grid portions and from model data in accordance with one or more embodiments. For example, a reservoir simulator may perform one or more logical operations on one or more selected reservoir properties within reservoir model data to generate a grid model."). The reservoir parameter dimensions that define the reservoir region of interest are given as user inputs to the simulation ((Dogru, ¶55) "As shown in FIG. 6, the simulation initialization function (610) uses reservoir parameter dimensions (601) (e.g., to define a reservoir region of interest), rock and fluid property data (602), relative permeability curves (603), and well production data (604) as inputs for a reservoir simulation. Likewise, the reservoir simulator also specifies various simulation parameters, such as a time step size (611), an initial time (612) of the reservoir simulation, and a grid size (613), for executing the reservoir simulation"). The exterior boundary may be set according to a grid with a specified number of nodes, wherein the node is being interpreted as a level of the drainage region ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, . . , 5. However, in other embodiments the wellbore radial grid may have more, or fewer nodes, than seven. In various embodiments the wellbore radial grid nodes may be equally, or unequally, spaced in radial distance.")
wherein the perforated grid block in the reservoir grid corresponds to a wellbore in the reservoir, and((Dogru, ¶42) "The wellbore radial grid (500) may be completely enclosed within the well grid block (516) of the coarse grid model (514) that contains the production wellbore (502)."); See also Dogru, Figure 5
wherein the drainage level of a grid block corresponds to a hop-distance of the grid block from the perforated grid block. As stated above, the nodes/rings of the radial grid are indicative of a drainage level in the region of the grid model. ((Dogru, ¶37) "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3C, the wellbore radial grid has seven nodes, one at the wellbore radius, rw, one at the exterior boundary of the wellbore radial grid, r0 and five intermediate nodes, rm with n=l, . . , 5. However, in other embodiments the wellbore radial grid may have more, or fewer nodes, than seven. In various embodiments the wellbore radial grid nodes may be equally, or unequally, spaced in radial distance."). Figure 5 depicts each radial ring/ grid portion corresponding to an increased distance from the wellbore radius containing the wellbore wherein each radius of the grid is an incremental distance from the wellbore. The radial grid portions are contained within the well grid block 516, thereby indicating that the distances/levels are of the grid block.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogru as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Manzoor et al (Manzoor, S., Middya, U., Byer, T.J., and Crumpton, P.I., “Efficient Modeling of Near Wellbore Phenomena For Large Scale Gas-Condensate Systems In Massively Parallel Reservoir Sim”, September 2018, ECMOR XVI -16th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Volume 2018, pp.1 - 16 ), hereinafter referred to as Manzoor.
Regarding claim 2, Dogru discloses The method of claim 1, wherein modeling the condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region comprises: as stated previously and further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]]))
computing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor, grid block interface fluxes in the wellbore drainage region [[to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility.]] The skin factor is considered in the simulation of the region of interest ((Dogru, ¶39) " Specifically, FIG. 4 describes a general method for simulating a reservoir region of interest using a dynamic skin factor."); ((Dogru, ¶41) " Additionally, in some embodiments, the coarse grid model includes a wellbore radial grid to determine a skin factor value for one or more time steps within a reservoir simulation."). The simulation of the grid model is subject to fluid flow calculations ((Dogru, ¶17) " Based on the physics of the fluid flow calculations in a particular time step, the current skin factor may be determined in order to predict a physically proper gas production rate at a simulated well"). The simulation accounts for fluid flow properties and interactions of grid blocks of the model ((Dogru, ¶29) " By averaging reservoir properties into larger blocks while preserving the flow properties of a reservoir model, computational time of a reservoir simulation may be reduced."). Flow properties of the simulation include flux that flows between grid blocks ((Dogru, ¶30) " Flow properties, such as flux, may be defined as a reservoir fluid (e.g., oil or natural-gas) that flows between any two grid blocks. Likewise, grid cells or blocks may be upscaled in a method that reduces the computational demand on running simulations using fewer grid cells. However, a grid model may lose accuracy in a reservoir simulation if the underlying properties differ too much from the original fine-grid model.")
Dogru does not explicitly mention the solution of interface flux for resolving pressure dependence of upstream mobility. However, Manzoor discloses leveraging a flow blocking/skin factor in flow modeling simulation as part of a coupled approach to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility. ((Manzoor, Page 7, ¶2) " Flow blockage factor computed from Equation (15) is always less than unity, and is used as mobility reduction factor applied to free gaseous phase (g) mobility and its associated components. Calculation of non-Darcy flow blockage factor does not require additional VLE processes, instead can be computed with pseudo-pressure integral. Note that this coupled approach computes integrated nonDarcy flow factor, which is more accurate and resolve pressure dependence of fluid properties.")
Dogru and Manzoor are analogous to the claimed invention, both targeting the same field of endeavor of improvement to gas-condensate well simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the teachings of Manzoor into the disclosure of Dogru because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Dogru discloses the leveraging of a dynamic skin factor in gridded gas condensate reservoir simulations that leverage the pseudo pressure method for modeling phenomena near a wellbore. Manzoor further leverages such a skin factor in gridded gas condensate simulation and describes modifying the pseudo pressure method for accuracy and efficiency ((Manzoor, Page 2, ¶4) " Accurate modelling of near wellbore phenomena in foll field gas-condensate system requires an efficient approach coupling pseudo-pressure integral, not only with velocity (capillary number) dependent relative permeability. but also ·with non-Darcy flow effects efficiently. ln this work an efficient method for evaluation of pseudo-pressure integral, with provision to couple modeling of velocity dependent relative permeability and non-Darcy flow is presented."); ((Manzoor, Page 7, ¶2) " Flow blockage factor computed from Equation (15) is always less than unity, and is used as mobility reduction factor applied to free gaseous phase (g) mobility and its associated components. Calculation of non-Darcy flow blockage factor does not require additional VLE processes, instead can be computed with pseudo-pressure integral. Note that this coupled approach computes integrated non-Darcy flow factor. which is more accurate and resolve pressure dependence of fluid properties."); ((Manzoor, Page 13, ¶1) " The proposed coupling is not only efficient, but also accurate, this is because it computes integrated non-Darcy blockage factor resolving pressure dependence of inflow performance relationship as shown in Equation (16)."). Accordingly, to achieve the increased accuracy and efficiency, one having skill would be motivated to make such a combination to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Dogru discloses The method of claim 1, wherein constructing the drainage pseudo-pressure table comprises: as stated previously.
Dogru does not disclose; however Manzoor discloses computing a pressure versus total generalized molar mobility (
λ
T
G
M
M
) value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table. ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶1) " Pseudo-pressure calculations are summarized in following steps: l. At each interval (pressure) of the numerical integration, the well stream is flashed and secondary properties (component fraction vaporized, density. viscosity etc.) are computed. 2. If the pressure is below dew point then using Equation (7b) and flashed quantities, relative permeability ratio kro/ krg is calculated. i. Simple lookup is then perfom1ed (with calculated kro/krg) determining relative permeabilities (krg, and kro) honoring Equation (7b) using Table (1 ). 3. Calculate total phase molar mobilities (,1.r,1) at each integration point using Equation (6). If a single phase dry gas is flowing. oil molar mobility is set to zero. After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically FB1.")
Dogru and Manzoor are analogous to the claimed invention, both in the same field of endeavor of gas condensate modeling and simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the teachings of Dogru with that of Manzoor because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Dogru discloses the utilization of a lookup table of pseudo pressure values that can be used to derive reservoir pressure and further describes iteratively updating variables during the simulation process to include skin factor values, pseudo pressure values, etc for different steps during the simulation ((Dogru, ¶54) " Accordingly, the process in FIG. 4 may iteratively return to Blocks 430-480 to update one or more variables during the simulation process, e.g., skin factor values, pseud-pressure values, gas production rates, bottom-hole pressure values, etc., for different time steps within a reservoir simulation."). Manzoor discloses evaluating each interval of the numerical integration, wherein each interval corresponds to a pressure, to calculate total phase molar mobilities and subsequently states that the total phase molar mobility may be used to determine the blocking/skin factor ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶2) " After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor FB1 can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically "). Accordingly, because Dogru suggests that the skin factor is determined during simulation time steps but does not disclose how the skin factor is necessarily updated and Manzoor provides an explicit mathematical derivation of how to achieve the skin factor based on the total phase molar mobility corresponding to each interval, the combination would have accordingly been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, the proposed combination discloses The method of claim 6, wherein calculating the drainage pseudo-pressure factor comprises: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Manzoor discloses computing, for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, a pseudo-pressure integral based on the pressure versus
λ
T
G
M
M
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table. ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶1) " Pseudo-pressure calculations are summarized in following steps: l. At each interval (pressure) of the numerical integration, the well stream is flashed and secondary properties (component fraction vaporized, density. viscosity etc.) are computed. 2. If the pressure is below dew point then using Equation (7b) and flashed quantities, relative permeability ratio kro/ krg is calculated. i. Simple lookup is then perfom1ed (with calculated kro/krg) determining relative permeabilities (krg, and kro) honoring Equation (7b) using Table (1 ). 3. Calculate total phase molar mobilities (,1.r,1) at each integration point using Equation (6). If a single phase dry gas is flowing. oil molar mobility is set to zero. After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically FB1."). Total phase mobility is considered as part of the integral defined in Equation 5 (
PNG
media_image2.png
92
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 9, Dogru discloses The reservoir simulator of claim 8, wherein modeling the condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region comprises: as stated previously and further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]]))
computing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor, grid block interface fluxes in the wellbore drainage region [[to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility.]] The skin factor is considered in the simulation of the region of interest ((Dogru, ¶39) " Specifically, FIG. 4 describes a general method for simulating a reservoir region of interest using a dynamic skin factor."); ((Dogru, ¶41) " Additionally, in some embodiments, the coarse grid model includes a wellbore radial grid to determine a skin factor value for one or more time steps within a reservoir simulation."). The simulation of the grid model is subject to fluid flow calculations ((Dogru, ¶17) " Based on the physics of the fluid flow calculations in a particular time step, the current skin factor may be determined in order to predict a physically proper gas production rate at a simulated well"). The simulation accounts for fluid flow properties and interactions of grid blocks of the model ((Dogru, ¶29) " By averaging reservoir properties into larger blocks while preserving the flow properties of a reservoir model, computational time of a reservoir simulation may be reduced."). Flow properties of the simulation include flux that flows between grid blocks ((Dogru, ¶30) " Flow properties, such as flux, may be defined as a reservoir fluid (e.g., oil or natural-gas) that flows between any two grid blocks. Likewise, grid cells or blocks may be upscaled in a method that reduces the computational demand on running simulations using fewer grid cells. However, a grid model may lose accuracy in a reservoir simulation if the underlying properties differ too much from the original fine-grid model.")
Dogru does not explicitly mention the solution of interface flux for resolving pressure dependence of upstream mobility. However, Manzoor discloses leveraging a flow blocking/skin factor in flow modeling simulation as part of a coupled approach to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility. ((Manzoor, Page 7, ¶2) " Flow blockage factor computed from Equation (15) is always less than unity, and is used as mobility reduction factor applied to free gaseous phase (g) mobility and its associated components. Calculation of non-Darcy flow blockage factor does not require additional VLE processes, instead can be computed with pseudo-pressure integral. Note that this coupled approach computes integrated nonDarcy flow factor, which is more accurate and resolve pressure dependence of fluid properties.")
Dogru and Manzoor are analogous to the claimed invention, both targeting the same field of endeavor of improvement to gas-condensate well simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the teachings of Manzoor into the disclosure of Dogru because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Dogru discloses the leveraging of a dynamic skin factor in gridded gas condensate reservoir simulations that leverage the pseudo pressure method for modeling phenomena near a wellbore. Manzoor further leverages such a skin factor in gridded gas condensate simulation and describes modifying the pseudo pressure method for accuracy and efficiency ((Manzoor, Page 2, ¶4) " Accurate modelling of near wellbore phenomena in foll field gas-condensate system requires an efficient approach coupling pseudo-pressure integral, not only with velocity (capillary number) dependent relative permeability. but also ·with non-Darcy flow effects efficiently. ln this work an efficient method for evaluation of pseudo-pressure integral, with provision to couple modeling of velocity dependent relative permeability and non-Darcy flow is presented."); ((Manzoor, Page 7, ¶2) " Flow blockage factor computed from Equation (15) is always less than unity, and is used as mobility reduction factor applied to free gaseous phase (g) mobility and its associated components. Calculation of non-Darcy flow blockage factor does not require additional VLE processes, instead can be computed with pseudo-pressure integral. Note that this coupled approach computes integrated non-Darcy flow factor. which is more accurate and resolve pressure dependence of fluid properties."); ((Manzoor, Page 13, ¶1) " The proposed coupling is not only efficient, but also accurate, this is because it computes integrated non-Darcy blockage factor resolving pressure dependence of inflow performance relationship as shown in Equation (16)."). Accordingly, to achieve the increased accuracy and efficiency, one having skill would be motivated to make such a combination to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Dogru discloses The reservoir simulator of claim 8, wherein constructing the drainage pseudo-pressure table comprises: as stated previously.
Dogru does not disclose; however Manzoor discloses computing a pressure versus total generalized molar mobility (
λ
T
G
M
M
) value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table. ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶1) " Pseudo-pressure calculations are summarized in following steps: l. At each interval (pressure) of the numerical integration, the well stream is flashed and secondary properties (component fraction vaporized, density. viscosity etc.) are computed. 2. If the pressure is below dew point then using Equation (7b) and flashed quantities, relative permeability ratio kro/ krg is calculated. i. Simple lookup is then perfom1ed (with calculated kro/krg) determining relative permeabilities (krg, and kro) honoring Equation (7b) using Table (1 ). 3. Calculate total phase molar mobilities (,1.r,1) at each integration point using Equation (6). If a single phase dry gas is flowing. oil molar mobility is set to zero. After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically FB1.")
Dogru and Manzoor are analogous to the claimed invention, both in the same field of endeavor of gas condensate modeling and simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the teachings of Dogru with that of Manzoor because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Dogru discloses the utilization of a lookup table of pseudo pressure values that can be used to derive reservoir pressure and further describes iteratively updating variables during the simulation process to include skin factor values, pseudo pressure values, etc for different steps during the simulation ((Dogru, ¶54) " Accordingly, the process in FIG. 4 may iteratively return to Blocks 430-480 to update one or more variables during the simulation process, e.g., skin factor values, pseud-pressure values, gas production rates, bottom-hole pressure values, etc., for different time steps within a reservoir simulation."). Manzoor discloses evaluating each interval of the numerical integration, wherein each interval corresponds to a pressure, to calculate total phase molar mobilities and subsequently states that the total phase molar mobility may be used to determine the blocking/skin factor ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶2) " After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor FB1 can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically "). Accordingly, because Dogru suggests that the skin factor is determined during simulation time steps but does not disclose how the skin factor is necessarily updated and Manzoor provides an explicit mathematical derivation of how to achieve the skin factor based on the total phase molar mobility corresponding to each interval, the combination would have accordingly been obvious.
Regarding claim 14, the proposed combination discloses The reservoir simulator of claim 13, wherein calculating the drainage pseudo-pressure factor comprises: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Manzoor discloses computing, for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, a pseudo-pressure integral based on the pressure versus
λ
T
G
M
M
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table. ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶1) " Pseudo-pressure calculations are summarized in following steps: l. At each interval (pressure) of the numerical integration, the well stream is flashed and secondary properties (component fraction vaporized, density. viscosity etc.) are computed. 2. If the pressure is below dew point then using Equation (7b) and flashed quantities, relative permeability ratio kro/ krg is calculated. i. Simple lookup is then perfom1ed (with calculated kro/krg) determining relative permeabilities (krg, and kro) honoring Equation (7b) using Table (1 ). 3. Calculate total phase molar mobilities (,1.r,1) at each integration point using Equation (6). If a single phase dry gas is flowing. oil molar mobility is set to zero. After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically FB1."). Total phase mobility is considered as part of the integral defined in Equation 5 (
PNG
media_image2.png
92
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 16, Dogru discloses The system of claim 15, wherein modeling the condensate banking phenomenon in the wellbore drainage region comprises: as stated previously and further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]]))
computing, based on the drainage pseudo-pressure factor, grid block interface fluxes in the wellbore drainage region [[to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility.]] The skin factor is considered in the simulation of the region of interest ((Dogru, ¶39) " Specifically, FIG. 4 describes a general method for simulating a reservoir region of interest using a dynamic skin factor."); ((Dogru, ¶41) " Additionally, in some embodiments, the coarse grid model includes a wellbore radial grid to determine a skin factor value for one or more time steps within a reservoir simulation."). The simulation of the grid model is subject to fluid flow calculations ((Dogru, ¶17) " Based on the physics of the fluid flow calculations in a particular time step, the current skin factor may be determined in order to predict a physically proper gas production rate at a simulated well"). The simulation accounts for fluid flow properties and interactions of grid blocks of the model ((Dogru, ¶29) " By averaging reservoir properties into larger blocks while preserving the flow properties of a reservoir model, computational time of a reservoir simulation may be reduced."). Flow properties of the simulation include flux that flows between grid blocks ((Dogru, ¶30) " Flow properties, such as flux, may be defined as a reservoir fluid (e.g., oil or natural-gas) that flows between any two grid blocks. Likewise, grid cells or blocks may be upscaled in a method that reduces the computational demand on running simulations using fewer grid cells. However, a grid model may lose accuracy in a reservoir simulation if the underlying properties differ too much from the original fine-grid model.")
Dogru does not explicitly mention the solution of interface flux for resolving pressure dependence of upstream mobility. However, Manzoor discloses leveraging a flow blocking/skin factor in flow modeling simulation as part of a coupled approach to resolve pressure dependence of upstream mobility. ((Manzoor, Page 7, ¶2) " Flow blockage factor computed from Equation (15) is always less than unity, and is used as mobility reduction factor applied to free gaseous phase (g) mobility and its associated components. Calculation of non-Darcy flow blockage factor does not require additional VLE processes, instead can be computed with pseudo-pressure integral. Note that this coupled approach computes integrated nonDarcy flow factor, which is more accurate and resolve pressure dependence of fluid properties.")
Dogru and Manzoor are analogous to the claimed invention, both targeting the same field of endeavor of improvement to gas-condensate well simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the teachings of Manzoor into the disclosure of Dogru because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Dogru discloses the leveraging of a dynamic skin factor in gridded gas condensate reservoir simulations that leverage the pseudo pressure method for modeling phenomena near a wellbore. Manzoor further leverages such a skin factor in gridded gas condensate simulation and describes modifying the pseudo pressure method for accuracy and efficiency ((Manzoor, Page 2, ¶4) " Accurate modelling of near wellbore phenomena in foll field gas-condensate system requires an efficient approach coupling pseudo-pressure integral, not only with velocity (capillary number) dependent relative permeability. but also ·with non-Darcy flow effects efficiently. ln this work an efficient method for evaluation of pseudo-pressure integral, with provision to couple modeling of velocity dependent relative permeability and non-Darcy flow is presented."); ((Manzoor, Page 7, ¶2) " Flow blockage factor computed from Equation (15) is always less than unity, and is used as mobility reduction factor applied to free gaseous phase (g) mobility and its associated components. Calculation of non-Darcy flow blockage factor does not require additional VLE processes, instead can be computed with pseudo-pressure integral. Note that this coupled approach computes integrated non-Darcy flow factor. which is more accurate and resolve pressure dependence of fluid properties."); ((Manzoor, Page 13, ¶1) " The proposed coupling is not only efficient, but also accurate, this is because it computes integrated non-Darcy blockage factor resolving pressure dependence of inflow performance relationship as shown in Equation (16)."). Accordingly, to achieve the increased accuracy and efficiency, one having skill would be motivated to make such a combination to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20 Dogru discloses The system of claim 15,as stated previously.
Dogru does not disclose; however Manzoor discloses wherein constructing the drainage pseudo-pressure table comprises computing a pressure versus total generalized molar mobility (
λ
T
G
M
M
) value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table, and((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶1) " Pseudo-pressure calculations are summarized in following steps: l. At each interval (pressure) of the numerical integration, the well stream is flashed and secondary properties (component fraction vaporized, density. viscosity etc.) are computed. 2. If the pressure is below dew point then using Equation (7b) and flashed quantities, relative permeability ratio kro/ krg is calculated. i. Simple lookup is then perfom1ed (with calculated kro/krg) determining relative permeabilities (krg, and kro) honoring Equation (7b) using Table (1 ). 3. Calculate total phase molar mobilities (,1.r,1) at each integration point using Equation (6). If a single phase dry gas is flowing. oil molar mobility is set to zero. After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically FB1.")
wherein calculating the drainage pseudo-pressure factor comprises computing, for said each grid block in the wellbore drainage region, a pseudo-pressure integral based on the pressure versus
λ
T
G
M
M
value pair for each entry of the drainage pseudo-pressure table. ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶1) " Pseudo-pressure calculations are summarized in following steps: l. At each interval (pressure) of the numerical integration, the well stream is flashed and secondary properties (component fraction vaporized, density. viscosity etc.) are computed. 2. If the pressure is below dew point then using Equation (7b) and flashed quantities, relative permeability ratio kro/ krg is calculated. i. Simple lookup is then perfom1ed (with calculated kro/krg) determining relative permeabilities (krg, and kro) honoring Equation (7b) using Table (1 ). 3. Calculate total phase molar mobilities (,1.r,1) at each integration point using Equation (6). If a single phase dry gas is flowing. oil molar mobility is set to zero. After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically FB1."). Total phase mobility is considered as part of the integral defined in Equation 5 (
PNG
media_image2.png
92
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Dogru and Manzoor are analogous to the claimed invention, both in the same field of endeavor of gas condensate modeling and simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the teachings of Dogru with that of Manzoor because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Dogru discloses the utilization of a lookup table of pseudo pressure values that can be used to derive reservoir pressure and further describes iteratively updating variables during the simulation process to include skin factor values, pseudo pressure values, etc for different steps during the simulation ((Dogru, ¶54) " Accordingly, the process in FIG. 4 may iteratively return to Blocks 430-480 to update one or more variables during the simulation process, e.g., skin factor values, pseud-pressure values, gas production rates, bottom-hole pressure values, etc., for different time steps within a reservoir simulation."). Manzoor discloses evaluating each interval of the numerical integration, wherein each interval corresponds to a pressure, to calculate total phase molar mobilities and subsequently states that the total phase molar mobility may be used to determine the blocking/skin factor ((Manzoor, Page 8, ¶2) " After total phase molar mobility is established at all integration points, pseudo-pressure blocking 0,,1) factor FB1 can be calculated by integrating Equation (5) numerically "). Accordingly, because Dogru suggests that the skin factor is determined during simulation time steps but does not disclose how the skin factor is necessarily updated and Manzoor provides an explicit mathematical derivation of how to achieve the skin factor based on the total phase molar mobility corresponding to each interval, the combination would have accordingly been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as written to overcome the remaining rejections (35 U.S.C. § 101) as set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose all of the features as set forth in the claim, including specifically the following features:
wherein the wellbore drainage region is constructed by traversing the reservoir grid from a perforated grid block based on a user specified cut off flux fraction,
…
wherein the flux fraction corresponds to a ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux,
wherein a first grid block associated with a first flux fraction exceeding the user specified cut off flux fraction is included in the well bore drainage region, and
wherein a second grid block associated with a second flux fraction less than the user specified cut off flux fraction is excluded from the well bore drainage region.
The closest prior art includes at least:
Dogru et al (US Patent Publication Number US 2022/0090496 A1) discloses the creation of a wellbore radial grid model for simulation purpose, wherein the grid model is generated according to properties provided as inputs and wherein the properties characterize the dimensions of the region of interest near a wellbore. The reference does not contemplate the utilization of a flux fraction corresponding to a ration as set forth in the claim or as any sort of threshold or boundary criteria for consideration of grid blocks.
Manzoor et al (Manzoor, S., Middya, U., Byer, T.J., and Crumpton, P.I., “Efficient Modeling of Near Wellbore Phenomena For Large Scale Gas-Condensate Systems In Massively Parallel Reservoir Sim”, September 2018, ECMOR XVI -16th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Volume 2018, pp.1 - 16) discloses a pseudo pressure approach for simulating gas condensate reservoirs using a gridded model. During simulation calculations, flash calculations are performed and the results are used to determine secondary properties including component fractions. The reference describes establishing modeling zones according to a dewpoint pressure value as a threshold. An inflow performance relationship for a well connection is described. The reference does not describe the flux fraction in terms of corresponding to a ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, nor does the reference describe any flux fraction as being specified by a user.
Chowdhury et al (Chowdhury, N., Sharma, R., Pope, G., and Sepehrnoori, K., “A Semi-Analytical Method to Predict Well Deliverability in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs”, September 2004, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, pp. SPE-90320) discloses a semi-analytical reservoir simulation method that leverages coarse grids to predict well deliverability in gas condensate reservoirs. The reference discloses leveraging fractional flow theory, wherein flash calculations are performed and the results are used to determine the fractional flows of oil and gas. The grid blocks surrounding the well grid block are evaluated against a dew point pressure to determine the corresponding region of evaluation for the simulation. The reference does not describe the flux fraction in terms of corresponding to a ratio of a grid block interface flux over a wellbore inflow flux, nor does the reference describe any flux fraction as being specified by a user.
No additional prior art, either alone or in combination, was found to cure the deficiencies of the cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is described above in the statement of reasons for indicating allowable matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights