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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2024 and 9/18/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation "the simulated reservoir" in the “integrating the well network…” limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim and not curing the deficiency of the independent claims.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 1.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I. Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
A method for modeling complex well completions, the method comprising:
identifying a well that is a candidate for receiving a complex well completion, the complex well completion including completion devices configured to alter a production from the well;
generating initial configuration data representing completion devices for the well;
modeling the well as a set of wellbore segments, the set of wellbore segments defining a well network, wellbore segments of the set of wellbore segments being modeled to represent completion devices based on the initial configuration data;
integrating the well network into a reservoir simulation grid by locating the wellbore segments within the simulated reservoir at particular locations within the reservoir simulation grid;
selecting a portion of the well network comprising at least one wellbore segment, the portion of the well network within a first area of the reservoir simulation grid;
refining the reservoir simulation grid within the first area that includes the selected at least one wellbore segment;
coarsening the reservoir simulation grid in a second area of the reservoir simulation grid outside of the first area that includes the at least one wellbore segment;
executing a simulation of the reservoir simulator, the simulation generating production data representing the production from the well, wherein the refining provides data at a high resolution at the first area, and wherein the coarsening enables a reduction in processing resources relative to the processing resources required for the first area; and
rendering for display a simulated production profile of the well.
The limitations identifying a well, generating initial configuration data, modeling the well as a set of wellbore segments, integrating the well network into a reservoir simulation grid, selecting a portion of the well network comprising at least one wellbore segment, refining the reservoir simulation grid within the first area, coarsening the reservoir simulation grid in a second area, and executing a simulation of the reservoir simulator are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, and judgements. A person can use a pencil and paper to perform all of the limitations identified.
Step 2A Prong II. Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitation outside the abstract idea which only presents insignificant extra-solution activity:
Rendering for display a simulated production of the well. (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Considering the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion, and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
changing values of parameters of the configuration of completion devices;
iteratively performing the executing and the changing until a value of an objective function meets a prespecified criterion; and
selecting a final configuration of completion devices based on a latest iteration of performing meeting the prespecified criterion.
This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A Prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). A person can perform the mental process of changing parameters in a model iteratively and selecting a final configuration of the model.
Claim 2 does not recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception beyond those required by the claim from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the claims recite:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein parameters of the configuration of completion devices comprise at least one of locations of completion devices, types of completion devices, and a number of completion devices.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the objective function comprises at least one of a water cut, a total oil production, a net present value of oil in the reservoir, an oil production in compartments of the well, a gas breakthrough, and a water breakthrough.
These limitations are considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A Prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claims 3 and 4 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites:
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
resetting the simulation grid to an original resolution;
integrating the final configuration of completion devices into the simulation grid by locating the well segments within the simulated reservoir at particular locations within the reservoir simulation grid; and
executing a simulation of the reservoir simulator with the simulation grid at the original resolution.
This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A Prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). A person can perform the mental process of integrating a configuration of completion devices into a simulation grid and executing a simulation. The person can acquire a pen and paper to perform this process.
Claim 5 does not recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception beyond those required by the claim from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: rendering for display a three-dimensional visualization of well segments and completion devices of the identified well.
Claim 6 only presents insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II). The limitation “rendering for display a 3-dimensional visualization” is well known, routine, and conventional activity in the art, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B)
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating commands to adjust settings of completion devices installed in the identified well based on the simulated production.
This limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A Prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). A person can perform the mental process of generating commands.
Claim 5 does not recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception beyond those required by the claim from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first area comprises reservoir simulation grid points within a specified radius surrounding the location of the identified well within the reservoir simulation grid.
Claim 8 merely links the judicial exception to a field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II). The limitation does not meaningfully limit the claim, as the invention is directed to modeling a target well, and performing local grid refinement (LGR) within a radius around the well, having a typically cylindrical shape, is well known, routine, and conventional activity in the art, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B).
The following is an analysis of independent claim 9.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim(s) 9-14 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
9. A system for modeling complex well completions, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
identifying a well that is a candidate for receiving a complex well completion, the complex well completion including completion devices configured to alter a production from the well;
generating initial configuration data representing completion devices for the well;
modeling the well as a set of wellbore segments, the set of wellbore segments defining a well network, wellbore segments of the set of wellbore segments being modeled to represent completion devices based on the initial configuration data;
integrating the well network into a reservoir simulation grid by locating the wellbore segments within the simulated reservoir at particular locations within the reservoir simulation grid
selecting a portion of the well network comprising at least one wellbore segment, the portion of the well network within a first area of the reservoir simulation grid;
refining the reservoir simulation grid within the first area that includes the selected at least one wellbore segment;
coarsening the reservoir simulation grid in a second area of the reservoir simulation grid outside of the first area that includes the at least one wellbore segment;
executing a simulation of the reservoir simulator, the simulation generating production data representing the production from the well, wherein the refining provides data at a high resolution at the first area, and wherein the coarsening enables a reduction in processing resources relative to the processing resources required for the first area; and
rendering for display a simulated production profile of the well.
The limitations identified as abstract are sufficiently similar to the abstract limitations of claim 1 and are considered abstract for the same reasons.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 9 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
“at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising…”
“Processor” and “a memory storing instructions” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
rendering for display a simulated production of the well. (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 10 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, thus claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 10-14, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-4, 7, and 8, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 15.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim(s) 15-20 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
15. One or more non-transitory machine-readable storage devices storing instructions for modeling complex well completions, the instructions being executable by one or more processors, to cause performance of operations comprising:
identifying a well that is a candidate for receiving a complex well completion, the complex well completion including completion devices configured to alter a production from the well;
generating initial configuration data representing completion devices for the well;
modeling the well as a set of wellbore segments, the set of wellbore segments defining a well network, wellbore segments of the set of wellbore segments being modeled to represent completion devices based on the initial configuration data;
integrating the well network into a reservoir simulation grid by locating the wellbore segments within the simulated reservoir at particular locations within the reservoir simulation grid;
selecting a portion of the well network comprising at least one wellbore segment, the portion of the well network within a first area of the reservoir simulation grid;
refining the reservoir simulation grid within the first area that includes the selected at least one wellbore segment;
coarsening the reservoir simulation grid in a second area of the reservoir simulation grid outside of the first area that includes the at least one wellbore segment;
executing a simulation of the reservoir simulator, the simulation generating production data representing the production from the well, wherein the refining provides data at a high resolution at the first area, and wherein the coarsening enables a reduction in processing resources relative to the processing resources required for the first area; and
rendering for display a simulated production profile of the well.
The limitations identified as abstract are sufficiently similar to the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 9, and the limitations are considered abstract for the same reasons.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 15 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
“One or more non-transitory machine-readable storage devices storing instructions for modeling complex well completions, the instructions being executable by one or more processors, to cause performance of operations comprising…”
“Non-transitory machine-readable storage devices” is a high-level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
rendering for display a simulated production of the well. (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 10 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, thus claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 16-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-4, 7, and 8, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen. (Modeling of Flow Control Devices in Smart Well Applications with Total Field Optimization, 2019) in view of Lie (An Introduction to Reservoir Simulation, 2019).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches the following limitations:
1. identifying a well that is a candidate for receiving a complex well completion, the complex well completion including completion devices configured to alter a production from the well; (a single candidate well, being modeled to include completion devices configured to alter production: (“An ICV is installed in each of the lateral.”) (pg. 6).
2. generating initial configuration data representing completion devices for the well; (Initial configuration data for the candidate well is shown in Figure 4, labeled “Well configuration in a single-well simulation case”).
3. modeling the well as a set of wellbore segments, the set of wellbore segments defining a well network, wellbore segments of the set of wellbore segments being modeled to represent completion devices based on the initial configuration data;
Chen teaches a well modeled as wellbore segments, recited as “Branch B1” and “Branch B2” (pg. 6), and further teaches well networks (“The pipes and mechanical devices like ICDs, ICVs, and electric submersible pump are represented using the links and the connections between links are represented by nodes … Mass balance equations and momentum balance equations are solved in the complex well network.”) (pg. 2).
4. integrating the well network into a reservoir simulation grid by locating the wellbore segments within the simulated reservoir at particular locations within the reservoir simulation grid;
Chen teaches integrating a well network into a reservoir simulation (“The complex well network is solved in the inner Newton step and then coupled with reservoir in the outer Newton. The coupling can be explicit, sequential, or fully implicit…”) (pg. 4). Additionally, Figure 4 depicts a well network integrated into a homogenous simulated reservoir. Chen acknowledges this technique as prior in the introduction (“Jiang (2007) proposed coupling a multisegment wellbore model MSWell with GPRS simulation tool…”) (pg. 2).
5. executing a simulation of the reservoir simulator, the simulation generating production data representing the production from the well
6. rendering for display a simulated production profile of the well.
For the limitations 5 and 6, Chen teaches executing a simulation (pg. 6). Figure 8, labeled, “Well total oil production” depicts generated production data from the simulation, rendered as a graph.
Chen does not teach the limitations:
7. selecting a portion of the well network comprising at least one wellbore segment, the portion of the well network within a first area of the reservoir simulation grid; refining the reservoir simulation grid within the first area that includes the selected at least one wellbore segment; coarsening the reservoir simulation grid in a second area of the reservoir simulation grid outside of the first area that includes the at least one wellbore segment;
8. wherein the refining provides data at a high resolution at the first area, and wherein the coarsening enables a reduction in processing resources relative to the processing resources required for the first area;
Lie teaches (7) selecting a portion of the well network comprising at least one wellbore segment, the portion of the well network within a first area of the reservoir simulation grid; refining the reservoir simulation grid within the first area that includes the selected at least one wellbore segment; coarsening the reservoir simulation grid in a second area of the reservoir simulation grid outside of the first area that includes the at least one wellbore segment; (Lie teaches refining and coarsening a reservoir simulation grid within specified areas (such as a first and second area). Figure 14.8 depicts refined and coarse areas existing in the same simulation grid. Lie teaches refining the simulation grid in an area including a wellbore segment in section 14.3.3, titled “Near Well Refinement for CaseB4.” In one example the area for refinement is computed via an adjacency matrix (538). In another example, Lie chooses explicit areas for different grid resolutions (pg. 556).
Lie also teaches (8), wherein the refining provides data at a high resolution at the first area, and wherein the coarsening enables a reduction in processing resources relative to the processing resources required for the first area; (Chapter 14, page 518).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the grid reservoir simulation of Chen with the refining and coarsening techniques of Lie, and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, namely the obtaining of “computationally tractable simulation models”.
One would be motivated to combine the prior arts Chen and Lie because Lie teaches well coarsening and refining (Lie: well coarsening: To obtain computationally tractable simulation models, it is therefore common to develop reduced models through some kind of upscaling (homogenization) procedure that removes spatial detail from the geological description. Typically, a coarser model is developed by identifying regions consisting of several cells and then replacing each region by a single, coarse cell with homogeneous properties that represent the heterogeneity inside the region in some averaged sense. (pg. 518). (Lie: well refinement: Pressure gradients and flow rates are usually much larger near wells than inside the reservoir. How accurate we are able to capture the flow solution in the near-well region strongly influences the accuracy of the overall simulation. It may therefore be desirable to have higher grid resolution in the near-well zone than inside the reservoir. (pg. 536).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chen teaches the limitations in the first paragraph of section “Device Control Modeling” (“Using this approach, one may design the optimal ICD/ICV parameters (e.g. number of compartments and compartment size, number of nozzles and nozzle sizes etc.)” using an optimization tool with reservoir simulations … it needs tens to the hundreds of iterations to find the optimal solution…”). Here “optimal solution” of Chen is being interpreted as implying a “prespecified criterion” of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches “water cut” as an objective function. (“…the ICV starts choking when the water cut reaches a threshold value (in this case 40%) … It is shown from Figure 7 with device control, the well is below its target water cut in the whole simulation time…”).
Regarding claim 5, Lie teaches executing a simulation at an original resolution (Chapter 15, page 561: “the quality of upscaling techniques is usually assessed by comparing upscaled production
characteristics with those obtained from a reference solution computed on an underlying
fine grid.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the grid reservoir simulation of Chen with the refining, coarsening, and quality assessment techniques of Lie, and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, namely obtaining an assessment of grid coarsening quality.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches control of completion devices (“A systematic full-field operation is used for device control applications of smart wells. Successful application of field level controls in smart wells has the benefit of the improved overall GOSP performance.”) (pg. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lie teaches grid refinement around the outside radius surrounding the location of a well (“Pressure gradients and flow rates are usually much larger near wells than inside the reservoir. How accurate we are able to capture the flow solution in the near-well region strongly influences the accuracy of the overall simulation. It may therefore be desirable to have higher grid resolution in the near-well zone than inside the reservoir. To refine blocks near the two wells, we use refineNearWell from the coarsegrid module, which takes a set of points and partitions these into cylindrical sectors around a single point in the xyplane. The first well is placed in the corner of the reservoir section and we partition the perforated well block into five radial sections.”) (pg. 536).
Regarding claims 9-14, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-4, 7, and 8 respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 15-20. The claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-4, 7, and 8 respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Modeling of Flow Control Devices in Smart Well Applications with Total Field Optimization, 2019) in view of Lie (An Introduction to Reservoir Simulation, 2019), and further in view of Jiang (Techniques for Modeling Complex Reservoirs and Advanced Wells, 2007).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Chen and Lie teach the limitations of independent claim 1, as explained above. Neither Chen nor Lie teach the limitation “rendering for display a three-dimensional visualization of well segments and completion devices of the identified well.” Jiang teaches “rendering for display a three-dimensional visualization of well segments and completion devices of the identified well.” (Jiang provides a rendering of a multisegment well (Figure 4.10, “Layout of a bilateral MSWell and a small reservoir”)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the simulation of Chen and the reservoir grid coarsening and refining techniques of Lie with the three-dimensional rendering of Jiang, all elements merely perform the same functions as they do separately. Additionally, the results of the combination (a three-dimensional rendering of a complex multi-segment well) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Fig 4.10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeValve et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0030816 A1) teaches optimizing complex wells with coupled well-reservoir simulation.
Shalaan & Chen (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0198981 A1) teaches complex well completion simulation and well control.
Ismail & Shaalan (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0284127 A1) teaches iterative segmented well optimization with reservoir simulation.
Ding (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0226311 A1) teaches reservoir grid simulation with grid coarsening and refining.
Shahkarami et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0242497 A1) teaches optimizing flow control devices with reservoir model.
Fung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0260016 A1) teaches unstructured reservoir grids coupled with complex wells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY GOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-7171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 5:00pm) 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights