Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification objections
4. The specification is objected to because it contains inconsistency.
Specification Paragraph [0039] states that “the intertidal channels have a porosity between 300 meters and 400 meters” and that “the intertidal-subtidal flats have a porosity between 100 meters and 200 meters.” However, elsewhere the specification uses values in meters to describe spatial characteristics, such as lateral continuity of porosity models (see, e.g., paragraph [0057]), rather than porosity itself. Appropriate corrective amendment is required to resolve the apparent inconsistency.
Specification, paragraph [0040] states: “the SIS model includes sheet-like beds that vary in thickness between 5 meters to 50 meters.” However, elsewhere in the specification, including Table 2 and paragraph [0044], the disclosed bed thicknesses are described in centimeters (e.g., 10 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, and 50 cm), while dimensions expressed in meters appear to correspond to lateral extent rather than vertical thickness. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the disclosed range of “5 meters to 50 meters” refers to bed thickness or lateral extent. Additionally, the phrase “between 5 meters to 50 meters” is grammatically inconsistent. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the intended disclosure.
Claim Objections
5. Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the bed-set layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends on claim 3. Claim 3 only introduces “bed-set level”. Appropriate correction is required in order to correct the antecedent basis. For Examination purposes, Examiner consider this as the bed-set layer.
b. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the subsurface reservoir” and “the lateral sections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It never introduces “a subsurface reservoir” and “a lateral sections”. Same apply to claim 18 since it depends on claim 17 for the “lateral sections”. Appropriate correction is required in order to correct the antecedent basis.
c. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the analyzed porosity and permeability trends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required in order to correct the antecedent basis. For the Examination purposes, Examiner consider this as applying a SGS to at least one of the porosity model and the permeability model through spherical model types;
c. Claim 17 recites “applying Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) to the porosity and permeability of the depths logs to identify heterogeneities in the porosity, and a permeability model of the subsurface reservoir”. This language does not clearly state whether SGS identifies heterogeneities in the porosity only, identifies heterogeneities in the permeability model, or identifies heterogeneities in the both models. Appropriate correction is required. For Examination purpose, Examiner consider identifies heterogeneities in the porosity model and the permeability model.
c. Claim 3 is objected because it recites “the the lateral sections”. It should be “the lateral sections”. Appropriate correction is required.
d. Claim 10 is objected due to typo error. It should be “or” instead of “ore”. Appropriate correction is required.
e. Claim 8-9 and 15 recites “between ..to..” which is grammatically incorrect. The preposition "between" should always be paired with "and" (e.g., "between 5 m and 50 m" for claim 8) or with "from" (e.g., "from 5 m to 50 m" for claim 8). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
a. Claim 8 recites “sheet-like bed that varies in thickness between 5 m and 50 m” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the specification, which describes bed thicknesses in centimeters. See specification objection in this office action above. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim is intended to recite bed thickness or lateral extent
b. Claim 12 recites that “the intertidal channels have a porosity between 300 m and 400 m,” and claim 13 recites that “the intertidal-subtidal flats have a porosity between 100 m and 200 m.” The recited units of meters (m) are inconsistent with the claimed property of porosity, which is not a length measurement. The specification further demonstrates this inconsistency. For example, Table 1 describes porosity values as numerical values (e.g., 0.33, 0.23, 0.40), and paragraph [0057] explains that the porosity models have lateral continuity of about 250 meters and 150 meters, indicating that distances measured in meters correspond to lateral continuity or variogram ranges rather than porosity. Additionally, Table 4 reports major and minor variogram ranges in meters, while porosity is separately reported as a reservoir property. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claims 12 and 13 are intended to recite porosity, lateral continuity, lateral extension, variogram range, or another reservoir characteristic. Because the scope of the claimed limitations cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, claims 12 and 13 are indefinite. For Examination purposes, Examiner consider this as the variogram ranges in view of table 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-16 are directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claims: 17-20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium that falls on i.e., manufacture statutory category.
Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1 and 17 recites:
forming a porosity model and a permeability model of the subsurface reservoir based on the plurality of depth logs of porosity and permeability by applying Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS); (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation falls under “Mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) SGS is a geostatistical mathematical algorithm (or calculation) that performs statistical calculations and probability-based interpolation to generate modeled porosity and permeability values form measured data)
identifying one or more heterogeneities in the porosity model and/or the permeability model of the subsurface reservoir; (The act of reviewing, judging, and evaluating models to spot variations (heterogeneities) is a process of evaluating and judgment. It can be performed entirely in the human mind or with simple pencil and paper. Thus, this limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 1 and 17 include the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of depth logs of porosity and permeability of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the depth logs are laterally spaced about 5 meters, wherein the porosity of each lateral section of a plurality of lateral sections is measured by a helium porosimeter, and the permeability of each lateral section of the plurality of lateral sections is measured using a hassler core holder assembly” is merely obtaining data and falls under the mere data gathering step as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant pre-solution activity. The claims do not recite any improvement to the operation of the measuring devices, any improvement to SGS itself or any technological improvement in computer functionality. The additional elements of forming the image of the subsurface reservoir based on the porosity model and the permeability model in claim 1 is merely outputs or displays the results of the analysis which falls under insignificant post solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of a non-transitory recording medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to perform a process in claim 17 is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, a method to image a subsurface reservoir and resolve intra-reservoir heterogeneities is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The claim 1 and 17 include the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of depth logs of porosity and permeability of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the depth logs are laterally spaced about 5 meters, wherein the porosity of each lateral section of a plurality of lateral sections is measured by a helium porosimeter, and the permeability of each lateral section of the plurality of lateral sections is measured using a hassler core holder assembly” is merely obtaining data and falls under the mere data gathering step as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant pre-solution activity and are well‐understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017) iii. Detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample, Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1377-78, 115 USPQ2d at 1157); Cleveland Clinic Foundation 859 F.3d at 1362, 123 USPQ2d at 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017); The claims do not recite any improvement to the operation of the measuring devices, any improvement to SGS itself or any technological improvement in computer functionality. The additional elements of forming the image of the subsurface reservoir based on the porosity model and the permeability model in claim 1 is merely outputs or displays the results of the analysis which falls under insignificant post solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. The additional elements of a non-transitory recording medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to perform a process in claim 17 is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, a method to image a subsurface reservoir and resolve intra-reservoir heterogeneities is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, claims 1 and 17 not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites first obtaining a core sample for each lateral section of the plurality of lateral sections, forming a flat face at a top face and a bottom face of each core sample, applying a curable monomer composition to each face of each core sample to seal each face, wherein the obtaining includes measuring the porosity and permeability of each core sample, wherein the porosity model and the permeability model include only lateral fluid transmission without axial fluid transmission. The limitation "wherein the porosity model and the permeability model include only lateral fluid transmission without axial fluid transmission" constitutes a mathematical concept or mental process. Specifically, generating a mathematical model to represent fluid transmission properties falls under abstract ideas. The additional elements of claim 2 recites physical preparation, sealing and measurement of core sample samples which merely gather and prepare data for use in the mathematical modeling of claim 1 and falls under insignificant extra solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g) vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis). The claims do not recite or disclose improvements to a computer or any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claims do not apply or involve a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims do not apply or perform the abstract idea with a particular machine, MPEP 2106.06b. The claims to do transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (data remains data when processed by a computer), MPEP 2106.05c. The claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claims are a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea (i.e. the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 3 and 18 recites creating a microfacies model by: assigning values for each microfacies of a plurality of microfacies of each of the lateral sections on a bed level, a bed-set level, a fifth-order sequence level, and a fourth-order sequence level; and modeling microfacies at the bed-set level with a Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) from the assigned values and architectural elements of each of the lateral sections. The instruction to "assign values for each microfacies... on a bed level, a bed-set level, a fifth-order sequence level, and a fourth-order sequence level" describes a act of categorization, correlation, and evaluation. This qualitative/quantitative analysis can be performed mentally or manually. The use of "Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS)" is an algorithm, statistical model, and mathematical calculation. Assigning numerical values to various categories (microfacies) across hierarchical levels (bed, bed-set, and sequence levels) is fundamentally a mathematical calculation and data manipulation step. So, it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract idea. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 4 and 19 recites creating a petrophysical model by: applying the SGS to at least one of the porosity model and the permeability model using a spherical model; and fitting one or more variogram models and porosity maps using the SGS to the porosity model and/or the permeability model. Applying Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS), spherical models, and variogram fitting to map data is essentially a series of mathematical equations and statistical interpolations. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 5 recites wherein the bed-set layer has a layer thickness between 5 cm and 25 cm. It merely narrows the claimed implementation of the layer thickness which is still an abstract idea. It merely limits the scale of the physical object being modeled. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 6 recites wherein the microfacies includes at least seven depositional settings. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 7 recites wherein the seven depositional settings include intertidal-subtidal flats, intertidal channels and creeks, shoal ridges, reef complex, outer ramp settings, and supratidal settings. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling of seven depositional settings and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 8 recites wherein the SIS model includes a sheet-like bed that varies in thickness between 5 m to 50m. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling of SIS modeling of claim 3 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 9 recites wherein the SIS model has a lateral extension value between 5 m to 300 m.. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling of SIS model of claim 3 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 10 recites wherein the SIS model has one or more horizontal variograms that range from 50 m to 1000 m. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling of SIS model of claim 3 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 11 recites wherein modeling microfacies with the SIS model further comprises dividing the architectural elements of the lateral sections. This limitation covers mental process including an observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 12 recites wherein the intertidal channels have a porosity between 300 m and 400 m. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling of intertidal channels of claim 7 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 13 recites wherein the intertidal-subtidal flats have a porosity between 100 m and 200 m. It merely narrows the implementation of the claimed modeling of intertidal-subtidal flats of claim 7 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 14 and 20 recites wherein the porosity model and the permeability model of the subsurface reservoir form a 3D geostatistical model. It is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 15 recites wherein the 3D geostatistical model can accommodate display between 300 to 500 outcrops. It is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 16 recites wherein the 3D geostatistical model includes data to resolve intra-reservoir heterogeneities. It is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohammed, Ammar Mohammed Adam. (High-resolution Stratigraphy, Biostratigraphy, and Diagenesis of Upper Khartam Member, Khuff Formation: Implication on Reservoir Quality and Architecture. Outcrop Analog from Central Saudi Arabia. Diss. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia), 2016.), hereinafter Adam.
Regarding claim 1
Adam teaches a method to image a subsurface reservoir and resolve intra-reservoir heterogeneities, (see table 1.2 and page 18- To construct quantitative models to characterize the spatial distribution of facies, porosity, and permeability at outcrop scale. The model is intended to provide an enhanced understanding of equivalent subsurface reservoir heterogeneity. See page 201 and section 6.2-The main objective of this paper is to build multi-realization 3D geocellular models and eventually extracting geostatistical parameter for small scale intra-reservoir interwell heterogeneities of the Upper Khartam Member of the Khuff Formation) comprising:
obtaining a plurality of depth logs of porosity and permeability of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the depth logs are laterally spaced about 5 meters, wherein the porosity of each lateral section of a plurality of lateral sections is measured by a helium porosimeter, and the permeability of each lateral section of the plurality of lateral sections is measured using a hassler core holder assembly; (see section 6.4 and page 201-202-A total 120 outcrop sections were logged in detail from sedimentological and petrophysical point of view. A composite section was established and four intra reservoir bodies were logged laterally at the well sections. The outcrop sections are located in the Buraydah quadrangle in central Saudi Arabia (Figure 6.1). The sections have a lateral spacing of 5m and they cover an area of 750m by 450m. The logs are based on a bed-by-bed field description and approximately 500 samples were collected for detailed petrographic and petrophysical analysis. Core plugs are mostly horizontal and 2 inch by 1 inch in length and diameter respectively. Porosity was measured using a helium porosimeter, while liquid (nitrogen) permeability was 201 obtained from gas permeability and verification of the Klinkenberg effect using a Hassler Core Holder assembly.)
and forming a porosity model and a permeability model of the subsurface reservoir based on the plurality of depth logs of porosity and permeability by applying Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS); (see page 217-SGS was used to model porosity and permeability of the laterally logged intra reservoir bodies. The porosity models of the intertidal sheets have relatively great lateral continuity in the north-east direction (about 250m) when compared with the porosity models of the intertidal creek and intertidal channels (about 150m). While permeability models show all most the same range for the different reservoir architecture and geometry (Figure 6.13). See fig 6.14 -3D geocellular model of porosity and fig 6.15-3D geocellular model of permeability)
identifying one or more heterogeneities in the porosity model and/or the permeability model of the subsurface reservoir; (See page 201 and section 6.2-The main objective of this paper is to build multi-realization 3D geocellular models and eventually extracting geostatistical parameter for small scale intra-reservoir interwell heterogeneities of the Upper Khartam Member of the Khuff Formation.)
and forming the image of the subsurface reservoir based on the porosity model and the permeability model. (see page 201-202- The main objective of this paper is to build multi-realization 3D geocellular models. The outcrop section, stratigraphic horizons, and the lithofacies, porosity, and permeability data were imported into Petrel 2016 for facies and petrophysical modeling and fluid flow simulations. See fig 6.14 -3D geocellular model of porosity and fig 6.15-3D geocellular model of permeability)
Regarding claim 17
Adam teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that, when executed by one or more processors, (see fig 1.5-Computer-based modeling and see page 4- build 3D computer-based geological and petrophysical models.) cause the one or more processors to perform a method including:
obtaining a plurality of depth logs of porosity and permeability of the subsurface reservoir, wherein the depth logs are laterally spaced about 5 meters, wherein the porosity of each lateral section of a plurality of lateral sections is measured by a helium porosimeter, and the permeability of each lateral section of the plurality of lateral sections is measured using a hassler core holder assembly; (see section 6.4 and page 201-202-A total 120 outcrop sections were logged in detail from sedimentological and petrophysical point of view. A composite section was established and four intra reservoir bodies were logged laterally at the well sections. The outcrop sections are located in the Buraydah quadrangle in central Saudi Arabia (Figure 6.1). The sections have a lateral spacing of 5m and they cover an area of 750m by 450m. The logs are based on a bed-by-bed field description and approximately 500 samples were collected for detailed petrographic and petrophysical analysis. Core plugs are mostly horizontal and 2 inch by 1 inch in length and diameter respectively. Porosity was measured using a helium porosimeter, while liquid (nitrogen) permeability was 201 obtained from gas permeability and verification of the Klinkenberg effect using a Hassler Core Holder assembly.)
and forming a porosity model and a permeability model of the subsurface reservoir based on the plurality of depth logs by applying Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) to the porosity and permeability of the depth’s logs (see page 217-SGS was used to model porosity and permeability of the laterally logged intra reservoir bodies. The porosity models of the intertidal sheets have relatively great lateral continuity in the north-east direction (about 250m) when compared with the porosity models of the intertidal creek and intertidal channels (about 150m). While permeability models show all most the same range for the different reservoir architecture and geometry (Figure 6.13). See fig 6.14 -3D geocellular model of porosity and fig 6.15-3D geocellular model of permeability)
identify heterogeneities in the porosity model and the permeability model of the subsurface reservoir; (See page 201 and section 6.2-The main objective of this paper is to build multi-realization 3D geocellular models and eventually extracting geostatistical parameter for small scale intra-reservoir interwell heterogeneities of the Upper Khartam Member of the Khuff Formation.)
Regarding claim 3
Adam teaches the method of claim 1. Adam further teaches creating a microfacies model by: assigning values for each microfacies of a plurality of microfacies of each of the lateral sections on a bed level, a bed-set level, a fifth-order sequence level, and a fourth-order sequence level; (see page 49-Four stratigraphic identities were defined, these include; beds, bedset, high-frequency fifth-order sequences, and fourth-order sequences. About 20,000 beds are defined and traced laterally, ranging in thickness from 5 to 40 cm and extending between 5 and 300 m. see section 6.1 and page 198-199-In this study we build multi-realization models based on three stratigraphic levels. At the bedset and fifth-order sequence stratigraphic levels, these lithofacies show lateral continuity with slight changes in the architectural parameter. Therefore, The Assign Value method of geostatistical modeling is used for building the lithofacies models at these levels)
and modeling microfacies at the bed-set level with a Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) from the assigned values and architectural elements of each of the the lateral sections. (see page 205-206-The lithofacies models at the HFS and BS levels were established directly by assigning values from the upscaled lithofacies types (Figure 6.5 and 7).Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) method is used to model the lithofacies types and the architectural elements at the bed level.)
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as of claim 3 since they are similar.
Regarding claim 4
Adam teaches the method of claim 1. Adam further teaches creating a petrophysical model by: applying the SGS to at least one of the porosity model and the permeability model using a spherical model; (see page 217-Two methods were used to model the petrophysical properties; these include Assigning Value (AV) and Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS). SGS was used to model porosity and permeability of the laterally logged intra reservoir bodies. Spherical model types were used)
and fitting one or more variogram models and porosity maps using the SGS to the porosity model and/or the permeability model. (see page 217- Spherical model types were used and the best fitted variograms models and maps indicated major direction in north-east direction(around70˚).The porosity models of the intertidal sheets have relatively great lateral continuity in the north-east direction (about 250m) when compared with the porosity models of the intertidal creek and intertidal channels (about 150m))
Regarding claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as of claim 4 since they are similar.
Regarding claim 5
Adam teaches the method of claim 3. Adam further teaches wherein the bed-set layer has a layer thickness between 5 cm and 25 cm. (see page 205-. The detailed modeling parameters of the defined zones (bedsets) are summarized in Table 6.1 and 2. For example, the BS4 is about 300 cm thick and composed of sheet-like bodies of intertidal flats. Beds of this bedset are of 10 cm thickness, and accordingly, a layer thickness of 10 cm was chosen to subdivide the BS4 into thin layers (Figure 6.3).)
Regarding claim 6
Adam teaches the method of claim 3. Adam further teaches wherein the microfacies includes at least seven depositional settings. (see section 3.1 and page 48-Accordingly, seven depositional settings 48 were distinguished)
Regarding claim 7
Adam teaches the method of claim 6. Adam further teaches wherein the seven depositional settings include intertidal-subtidal flats, intertidal channels and creeks, shoal ridges, reef complex, outer ramp settings, and supratidal settings. (See section 3.1 and page 48-49-Accordingly, seven depositional settings 48 were distinguished, including intertidal-subtidal flats, supratidal settings, intertidal channels and creeks, shoal ridges, reef complex, and outer ramp settings.)
Regarding claim 8
Adam teaches the method of claim 3. Adam further teaches wherein the SIS model includes a sheet-like bed that varies in thickness between 5 m to 50m. (See abstract- The beds are stacked into well-developed bedsets composed of a complex internal amalgamation with relatively large lateral extension of several thousand of meter and thickness ranging between 1 and 5 m. (see page 99-100 HFS 2 and HFS 3-This sequence is about 550 cm thick and encompasses bedset 4 and 5, to the north, is outcrop 3, the thickness reach 1300 cm.)
Regarding claim 9
Adam teaches the method of claim 3. Adam further teaches wherein the SIS model has a lateral extension value between 5 m to 300 m. (see section 3.1 and page 48-These lithofacies are occurring as sheet-like and channelized bodies. The former range in thicknesses from 5 to 40 cm and possess a lateral extension varying between 5 and 300 m)
Regarding claim 10
Adam teaches the method of claim 3. Adam further teaches wherein the SIS model has one or more horizontal variograms that range from 50 m to 1000 m. (see page 206-Accordingly, vertical layering thickness of 10 cm and horizontal variograms with ranges of 50 m and 1000 m are deterministically defined along dip and strike directions respectively)
Regarding claim 11
Adam teaches the method of claim 3. Adam further teaches wherein modeling microfacies with the SIS model further comprises dividing the architectural elements of the lateral sections. (see page 199-The Upper Khartam carbonates are composed of complexly amalgamated beds of different architectural elements and lithofacies types. see page 206-Each bedset has characteristic beds geometry; therefore, the bedsets boundaries were chosen to subdivide the succession into zones within which lithofacies and beds geometries have been modelled. The vertical stacks of the lithofacies types and the architectural elements of each bedset were used to build the lithofacies models.)
Regarding claim 12
Adam teaches the method of claim 7. Adam further teaches wherein the intertidal channels have a porosity between 300 m and 400 m. (See fig 5.23- lateral spacing LFT-1 -channelized and see fig 6.12 and see table 6.3)
Regarding claim 13
Adam teaches the method of claim 7. Adam further teaches wherein the intertidal-subtidal flats have a porosity between 100 m and 200 m. (See table 3.1- Sheet-like bodies, ranges in length from 50 m to 200 m for the intertidal to subtidal flats for LFT6 and see table 6.3)
Regarding claim 14
Adam teaches the method of claim 1. Adam further teaches wherein the porosity model and the permeability model of the subsurface reservoir form a 3D geostatistical model. (see section 6 and page 199- Ultimately, this information should be represented in a 3D geocellular models with all geostatistical parameters (i.e., variograms parameters). See fig 6.14 -3D geocellular model of porosity and fig 6.15-3D geocellular model of permeability)
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as of claim 14 since they are similar.
Regarding claim 16
Adam teaches the method of claim 14. Adam further teaches wherein the 3D geostatistical model includes data to resolve intra-reservoir heterogeneities. (See page 201 and section 6.2-The main objective of this paper is to build multi-realization 3D geocellular models and eventually extracting geostatistical parameter for small scale intra-reservoir interwell heterogeneities of the Upper Khartam Member of the Khuff Formation.)
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.
9. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed, Ammar Mohammed Adam. (High-resolution Stratigraphy, Biostratigraphy, and Diagenesis of Upper Khartam Member, Khuff Formation: Implication on Reservoir Quality and Architecture. Outcrop Analog from Central Saudi Arabia. Diss. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia), 2016.), hereinafter Adam, in view of Kanj et al. (PUB NO: US20180335374A1).
Regarding claim 2
Adam teaches the method of claim 1. Adam further teaches first obtaining a core sample for each lateral section of the plurality of lateral sections, (See page 201- The sections have a lateral spacing of 5m and they cover an area of 750m by 450m. The logs are based on a bed-by-bed field description and approximately 500 samples were collected for detailed petrographic and petrophysical analysis. Core plugs are mostly horizontal and 2 inch by 1 inch in length and diameter respectively. See TABLE 5.3)
wherein the obtaining includes measuring the porosity and permeability of each core sample, (See table 5.3- Summary of reservoir quality data for the defined lithofacies types. Depositional parameters refer to estimated measurements from grain-size analysis and present day core measurements respectively. Abbreviations: Φ and K, respectively porosity and permeability)
Adam does not teach forming a flat face at a top face and a bottom face of each core sample, applying a curable monomer composition to each face of each core sample to seal each face, wherein the porosity model and the permeability model include only lateral fluid transmission without axial fluid transmission.
In the related field of invention, Kanj teaches forming a forming a flat face at a top face and a bottom face of each core sample, (see para 25- The subterranean core sample(s) may have a cylindrical geometry including a lateral surface, a top base surface, and a bottom base surface. See para 56- The top and bottom base surfaces may be generally planar, in line with machining limitations)
applying a curable monomer composition to each face of each core sample to seal each face; (see para 56-the top and the bottom base surfaces may be covered with a coating material. The coating may be transient, such as an oil or grease coating, or semi-permanent, i.e., intended to remain in place for several uses, such as a fluoropolymer material as described herein. see para 61-62-fluoroelastomers. Alternate (or blendable with any other) useful FKM fluoroelastomers could include Type 2 FKMs, comprising VDF, HFP, and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE). See also para 69- The core sample to be analyzed generally has a seal set on the top and bottom and is inserted into a high permeable porous jacket that is placed into a flexible sleeve that may be made using elastomer(s) and especially fluoroelastomer(s), e.g., VITON™ fluoroelastomer(s).)
wherein the porosity model and the permeability model include only lateral fluid transmission without axial fluid transmission. (see para 004- axial displacement pattern(s) have not been entirely satisfactory due to their failure. see para 43- The subterranean core sample (e.g., “core sample”) preferably has an annular axial cross-section, i.e., cut in the direction orthogonal to the axial direction of the subterranean core sample. See para 69- The core sample to be analyzed generally has a seal set on the top and bottom and is inserted into a high permeable porous jacket that is placed into a flexible sleeve that may be made using elastomer(s) and especially fluoroelastomer(s), e.g., VITON™ fluoroelastomer(s).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of subterranean core samples as disclosed by Adam to include forming a flat face at a top face and a bottom face of each core sample, applying a curable monomer composition to each face of each core sample to seal each face, wherein the porosity model and the permeability model include only lateral fluid transmission without axial fluid transmission as taught by Kanj in the system of Adam for determining different physical parameters of reservoir core samples and evaluating performance in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and improved oil recovery (IOR), for example when fluid injection and production occurs in the pattern of radial flow at evaluated conditions.(see para [0002], Kanj)
10. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed, Ammar Mohammed Adam. (High-resolution Stratigraphy, Biostratigraphy, and Diagenesis of Upper Khartam Member, Khuff Formation: Implication on Reservoir Quality and Architecture. Outcrop Analog from Central Saudi Arabia. Diss. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia), 2016.), hereinafter Adam, in view of Brown Jr, L. F. ("Virgil and Lower Wolfcamp Repetitive Environments and The Depositional Model North-Central Texas1." (1972): 115-134.)
Regarding claim 15
Adam teaches the method of claim 14. Adam teaches wherein the 3D geostatistical model can display outcrops. (See page 201- A total 120 outcrop sections were logged in detail from sedimentological and petrophysical point of view. A composite section was established and four intra reservoir bodies were logged laterally at the well sections. The outcrop sections are located in the Buraydah quadrangle in central Saudi Arabia (Figure 6.1))
Adam does not teach wherein the 3D geostatistical model can accommodate display between 300 to 500 outcrops.
In the related field of invention, Brown teaches wherein the 3D geostatistical model can accommodate display between 300 to 500 outcrops. (see page 121 and section Depositional facies model-Stratigraphic and structural control was based on surface and subsurface data. Thin, relatively persistent lime stone beds were key stratigraphic units. Elongate sand stones outline the skeletal framework of delta lobes and fluvial channels. Surface control was based on 800 described localities,300 measured sections, limestone facies maps, and reconstructed elongate sandstone patterns tied by maps of all members and key beds at 1:20,000scale. Subsurface control included 250 wells correlated with 12 dip and strike sections tied to the outcrop section.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming 3D geostatistical model as disclosed by Adam to include wherein the 3D geostatistical model can accommodate display between 300 to 500 outcrops as taught by Brown in the system of Adam in order to explain the origin of complex, repetitive sequences within the Virgil and lower Wolf camp rocks of North-central Texas. By examining Cisco-Bowie rocks using a depositional model concept it helps to understand factors for controlling repetitive sedimentation and to establish depositional models which simplify and explain complex facies relationships in the North-central Texas. (See page 116, Brown)
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strebelle US 20110213600 A1
i. Discussing the method of using multiple-point statistics simulation (MPS) to model reservoir property trends. MPS simulation consists of first extracting patterns from a training image describing the type of facies heterogeneity expected in the reservoir under study, and then reproducing similar patterns conditionally to well and seismic data in the simulation grid.
Adam et al. Adam, Ammar, et al. "Reservoir heterogeneity and quality of Khuff carbonates in outcrops of central Saudi Arabia." Marine and Petroleum Geology 89 (2018): 721-751.
i. Discussing the method to characterize the reservoir heterogeneity of the Upper Khartam Member based on a previously established primary stratigraphic framework at a lateral sampling spacing of about 5 m.
12. All claims 1-20 are rejected.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights