DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 05/31/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 05/31/2023 is the earliest claimed date in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 05/31/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 05/31/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted
Specification
The abstract dated 05/31/2023 has been reviewed. It has 140 words and 10 lines and no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 and 13 reads “interpolating the acquired simulated pressures and the corresponding simulated flow rates and simulated WCs”. The term “interpolating” is interpreted under its dictionary definition, as described by Merriam-Webster dictionary, to estimate values of a function between two known values.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “averaging the simulated flow rates and simulated WCs" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether “the simulated flow rates and simulated WCs” is referring to previously recited “corresponding simulated flow rates and simulated WCs” of line 3 or “obtaining simulated flow rates and simulated WCs” of line 8. For the purposes of examination, the second mention of simulated flow rates and WCs in line 8 is considered to be a subset of the initial acquired simulated flow rates and WCs.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “averaging the simulated flow rates and simulated WCs" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether “the simulated flow rates and simulated WCs” is referring to previously recited “corresponding simulated flow rates and simulated WCs” of line 4 or “obtaining simulated flow rates and simulated WCs” of line 9. For the purposes of examination, the second mention of simulated flow rates and WCs in line 9 is considered to be a subset of the initial acquired simulated flow rates and WCs.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims 1 and 12.
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.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A method to measure (i.e., gather data) flow rate (i.e., numeric value) and water cut (WC) (i.e., numeric value) of a well, the method comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “from a data set, for depths of two pressure gauges installed in the well (i.e., a location), acquiring (i.e., gather data) simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., numeric value) and corresponding simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values); measuring (i.e., gather data) pressures at the depths of the two pressure gauges via the two pressure gauges; comparing the measured pressures (i.e., numeric value) with the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., value), by calculating error values for the measured pressures (i.e., numeric value) with respect to the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., values);
obtaining simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., values) that correspond to the calculated error values not greater than a threshold; and averaging the simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., value) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., value) that correspond to the simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., value) that have the error values not greater than the threshold, to acquire an estimated flow rate (i.e., numeric value) and an estimated WC (i.e., numeric value) at the depths of the two pressure gauges (i.e., a location) (NOTE: instant specification paragraph 0022 describes the simulation as a numerical method/FEM; para 0032 describes a mathematical calculation to compare measured pressure and simulated pressure)” which recites a series of mathematical steps that implement an Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) that acquires estimated values that are point estimates for a hypothesis after considering observed evidence (i.e., posterior distribution). This set of mathematical steps take an observed numeric value and compare the numeric value to a hypothesis (i.e., simulated/calculated value) by calculating an error (i.e., distance between observed value and calculated value) and then estimate the central tendency (i.e., average) in order to estimate the likelihood of the hypothetical values given the observed values. In other words, the claim recites mathematical calculations which perform the abstract idea of mathematically calibrating a hypothesis by updating prior assumptions.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “for depths of two pressure gauges installed in the well” and “at the depths of the two pressure gauges” which describe the location represented by the data set used in the abstract idea. This limitation is therefore interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment that the dataset originates from (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites “from a data set…acquiring simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., numeric value) and corresponding simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values)” and “measuring pressures at the depths of the two pressure gauges via the two pressure gauges” which describes collecting numerical values from a data set and two measuring devices. This limitation is therefore interpreted as Mere Data Gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites necessary data gathering steps for collecting values from a data set and pressure values at depth for later use in a mathematical calculation (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). While the claim characterizes the mathematical output as for pressure gauges at a depth, this merely links the calculation to a field of use. Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “interpolating (i.e., mathematical process) the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., numeric value) and the corresponding simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values)” which recites the mathematical process of interpolating additional numeric values between existing numeric values.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim recites a mathematical algorithm of interpolation and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the depths of the two pressure gauges are below a bubble point depth of an extracted fluid of the well” which recites additional elements to the abstract idea inherited from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “the depths of the two pressure gauges are below a bubble point depth of an extracted fluid of the well” which further describes the data gathering step listed in claim 1 and merely specifies the source/origin of the data. It is also interpreted to be mere data gathering and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely specifies a data source for a necessary data gathering step. (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). While the claim characterizes the mathematical output as for pressure gauges at depth, this merely links the calculation to a field of use. Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “sorting the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values) based on the calculated error values (NOTE: Instant specification paragraph 0034 describes the values sorted least to greatest based on error values)” which recites the mathematical process of organizing calculated values from least to greatest. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim recites a mathematical process of sorting and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 2, further comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “sorting the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values) based on the calculated error values (NOTE: Instant specification paragraph 0034 describes the values sorted least to greatest based on error values)” which recites the mathematical process of organizing calculated values from least to greatest. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim recites a mathematical process of sorting and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “installing the two pressure gauges inside the well” which recites additional elements and inherits the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “installing the two pressure gauges inside the well” which describes the devices used in the data gathering step of claim 1 are inside a well. As such it is also interpreted to expand upon the Mere Data Gathering step of claim 1 (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, it does not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely specifies the location of a data source for a necessary data gathering step. (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 6, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the two pressure gauges are installed inside a tubing of the well where hydrocarbon fluid flows” which lists additional elements and inherits the abstract idea from claims 1 and 6.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “the two pressure gauges are installed inside a tubing of the well where hydrocarbon fluid flows” which further describes the Mere Data Gathering step of claim 1 and claim 6 by providing a location in which the gauges are located. Therefore, this element is also interpreted as Mere Data Gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely specifies the location of a data source for a necessary data gathering step. (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “developing a calibrated hydraulic simulation model (i.e., mathematical algorithm) that includes the data set (NOTE: Instant specification paragraph 0022 describes “The hydraulic simulation model uses a numerical method, such as finite element method (FEM)” as math)” which is a recitation of a mathematical algorithm and thus is an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “calibrated hydraulic” which describes a Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of well hydraulics that the mathematical model represents. As such it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The element of “calibrated hydraulic” constitutes a Field of Use and Technological Environment and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 8, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the hydraulic simulation model is calibrated to capture current completion, reservoir depth, and flow rate and WC (i.e., variables A, B, C and D) at the depths of the two pressure gauges (i.e., the mathematical algorithm can output four variables)” which lists additional elements to the abstract idea inherited from claim 8.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “capture current completion, reservoir depth, and flow rate and WC” this merely expands upon aspects of the abstract idea by naming the outputs of the mathematical algorithm. This element can also be interpreted to indicate the Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of oil wells that the variables represent. In either instance, this element does not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and not significantly more than the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The element of “capture current completion, reservoir depth, and flow rate and WC” constitutes a Field of Use and Technological Environment and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the two pressure gauges are permanent downhole measurement systems.” which recites additional elements to the abstract idea inherited from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “the two pressure gauges are permanent downhole measurement systems” this further describes the data gathering step of claim 1. As such this element is interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment (see 2106.05(h)) of permanent systems and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The element of “the two pressure gauges are permanent downhole measurement systems” constitutes a Field of Use and Technological Environment and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge, the measured pressures include a first measured pressure (i.e., first numeric value) for the first pressure gauge and a second measured pressure (i.e., second numeric value) for the second pressure gauge, and each of the error values is calculated by comparing the first measured pressure with a simulated pressure (i.e., mathematical calculation using a hypothetical numerical key and the first numerical value) for a depth of the first pressure gauge and by comparing the second measured pressure with a simulated pressure (i.e., mathematical calculation using a hypothetical numerical key and the first numerical value) for a depth of the second pressure gauge” which is a recitation of a mathematical calculation of comparing two numerical values with hypothetical numerical values to get an error value. Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge, the measured pressures include a first measured pressure (i.e., first numeric value) for the first pressure gauge and a second measured pressure (i.e., second numeric value) for the second pressure gauge” this merely further describes the data gathering step from claim 1 and details two numeric values for each pressure gauge. This limitation is therefore interpreted as Mere Data Gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “for a depth of the first pressure gauge” and “for a depth of the second pressure gauge” which describe the location represented by hypothetical values from the data set used in the abstract idea. This limitation is therefore interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment the dataset originates from (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites necessary data gathering steps for collecting pressure values at depth and presenting those values for later use in a mathematical calculation (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). While the claim characterizes the mathematical output as for pressure gauges at a depth, this merely links the calculation to a field of use. Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) storing instructions for performing operation that measures flow rate and water cut (WC) of a well, the operation comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “from a data set, for depths of two pressure gauges installed in the well (i.e., a location), acquiring (i.e., gather data) simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., numeric value) and corresponding simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values); measuring (i.e., gather data) pressures at the depths of the two pressure gauges via the two pressure gauges; comparing the measured pressures (i.e., numeric value) with the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., value), by calculating error values for the measured pressures (i.e., numeric value) with respect to the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., values);
obtaining simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., values) that correspond to the calculated error values not greater than a threshold; and averaging the simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., value) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., value) that correspond to the simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., value) that have the error values not greater than the threshold, to acquire an estimated flow rate (i.e., numeric value) and an estimated WC (i.e., numeric value) at the depths of the two pressure gauges (i.e., a location) (NOTE: instant specification paragraph 0022 describes the simulation as a numerical method/FEM; para 0032 describes a mathematical calculation to compare measured pressure and simulated pressure)” which recites a series of mathematical steps that implement an Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) that acquires estimated values that are point estimates for a hypothesis after considering observed evidence (i.e., posterior distribution). This set of mathematical steps take an observed numeric value and compare the numeric value to a hypothesis (i.e., simulated/calculated value) by calculating an error (i.e., distance between observed value and calculated value) and then estimate the central tendency (i.e., average) in order to estimate the likelihood of the hypothetical values given the observed values. In other words, the claim recites mathematical calculations which perform the abstract idea of mathematically calibrating a hypothesis by updating prior assumptions.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “for depths of two pressure gauges installed in the well” and “at the depths of the two pressure gauges” which describe the location represented by the data set used in the abstract idea. This limitation is therefore interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment that the dataset originates from (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites “from a data set…acquiring simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., numeric value) and corresponding simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values)” and “measuring pressures at the depths of the two pressure gauges via the two pressure gauges” which describes collecting numerical values from a data set and two measuring devices. This limitation is therefore interpreted as Mere Data Gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) storing instructions for performing operation” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites necessary data gathering steps for collecting values from a dataset and pressure values at depth for later use in a mathematical calculation (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). While the claim characterizes the mathematical output as for pressure gauges at depth, this merely links the calculation to a field of use. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 12, wherein the operation further comprises”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “interpolating (i.e., mathematical process) the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) pressures (i.e., numeric value) and the corresponding simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values)” which recites the mathematical process of interpolating additional numeric values between existing numeric values.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 12” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim recites a mathematical algorithm of interpolation and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 12, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the depths of the two pressure gauges are below a bubble point depth of an extracted fluid of the well” which recites additional elements to the abstract idea inherited from claim 12.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “the depths of the two pressure gauges are below a bubble point depth of an extracted fluid of the well” which further describes the data gathering step listed in claim 1 and merely specifies the source/origin of the data. It is also interpreted to be mere data gathering and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 12” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely specifies a data source for a necessary data gathering step. (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). While the claim characterizes the mathematical output as for pressure gauges at depth, this merely links the calculation to a field of use. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 12, wherein”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the two pressure gauges are installed inside a tubing of the well where hydrocarbon fluid flows” which lists additional elements and inherits the abstract idea from claims 12.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim recites “the two pressure gauges are installed inside a tubing of the well where hydrocarbon fluid flows” which further describes the Mere Data Gathering step of claim 1 and claim 6 by providing a location in which the gauges are located. Therefore, this element is also interpreted as Mere Data Gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 12” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely specifies the location of a data source for a necessary data gathering step. (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 12, wherein the operation further comprises”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “sorting the acquired simulated (i.e., calculated) flow rates (i.e., numeric values) and simulated (i.e., calculated) WCs (i.e., numeric values) based on the calculated error values (NOTE: Instant specification paragraph 0034 describes the values sorted least to greatest based on error values)” which recites the mathematical process of organizing calculated values from least to greatest. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 12” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim recites a mental process of ordering and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 14”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge, the measured pressures include a first measured pressure (i.e., first numeric value) for the first pressure gauge and a second measured pressure (i.e., second numeric value) for the second pressure gauge, and each of the error values is calculated by comparing the first measured pressure with a simulated pressure (i.e., mathematical calculation using a hypothetical numerical key and the first numerical value) for a depth of the first pressure gauge and by comparing the second measured pressure with a simulated pressure (i.e., mathematical calculation using a hypothetical numerical key and the first numerical value) for a depth of the second pressure gauge” which is a recitation of a mathematical calculation of comparing two numerical values with hypothetical numerical values to get an error value. Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge, the measured pressures include a first measured pressure (i.e., first numeric value) for the first pressure gauge and a second measured pressure (i.e., second numeric value) for the second pressure gauge” this merely further describes the data gathering step from claim 1 and details two numeric values for each pressure gauge. This limitation is therefore interpreted as Mere Data Gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “for a depth of the first pressure gauge” and “for a depth of the second pressure gauge” which describe the location represented by hypothetical values from the data set used in the abstract idea. This limitation is therefore interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment the dataset originates from (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 14” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely recites necessary data gathering steps for collecting pressure values at depth and presenting those values for later use in a mathematical calculation (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93). While the claim characterizes the mathematical output as for pressure gauges at a depth, this merely links the calculation to a field of use. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Therefore, it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 12, wherein the operation further comprises”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “developing a calibrated hydraulic simulation model (i.e., mathematical algorithm) that includes the data set (NOTE: Instant specification paragraph 0022 describes “The hydraulic simulation model uses a numerical method, such as finite element method (FEM)” as math)” which is a recitation of a mathematical algorithm and thus is an abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “calibrated hydraulic” which describes a Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of well hydraulics that the mathematical model represents. As such it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 12” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 18”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the hydraulic simulation model is calibrated to capture current completion, reservoir depth, and flow rate and WC (i.e., variables A, B, C and D) at the depths of the two pressure gauges (i.e., the mathematical algorithm can output four variables)” which lists additional elements to the abstract idea inherited from claim 18.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “capture current completion, reservoir depth, and flow rate and WC” this merely expands upon aspects of the abstract idea by naming the outputs of the mathematical algorithm. This element can also be interpreted to indicate the Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) of oil wells that the variables represent. In either instance, this element does not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and not significantly more than the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 18” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The CRM of claim 12, wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the two pressure gauges are permanent downhole measurement systems.” which recites additional elements to the abstract idea inherited from claim 12.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “the two pressure gauges are permanent downhole measurement systems” this further describes the data gathering step of claim 1. As such this element is interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment (see 2106.05(h)) of permanent systems and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more.
While the claim recites “The (CRM) of claim 12” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements or a combination thereof that constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Additionally, the recited elements being stored on a “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not constitute a particular machine because it is a generally recited computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2013 (US 2013/0166216 A1) in view of Turner_2012 (A tutorial on approximate Bayesian computation, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56, March 2012).
Claim 1. Foot_2013 makes obvious “A method to measure flow rate and water cut (WC) of a well (para 0003 “This invention is in the field of oil and gas production, and is more specifically directed to the real-time monitoring of fluid flow rates for multiple fluid phases from hydrocarbon wells.“; para 0023 “This invention provides a robust method for determining rate and phase information for one or more wells without reliance on continual flow-metering”; para 0058 “Curve 31 illustrates the relationship of a phase parameter (e.g., watercut) to a measured parameter such as downhole pressure”; EXAMINER NOTE: the fluid phases include parameters like water cut), the method comprising: from a data set (para 0084 “As shown in FIG. 8, database 12 stores rate and phase values that have been previously calculated for wells W, for example in database entries such as entry”; EXAMINER NOTE: a database stores the results of the model calculation as a data set), for depths of two pressure gauges installed in the well (Figure 1 element 422 depicts a well with two pressure transducers; Figure 2 also depicts a well with two pressure transducers in it labeled WPT and PT; 0043 “A given completion string 4 and its associated equipment, including downhole pressure transducers PT, wellhead pressure transducers WPT, wellhead temperature transducers WTT, flow transducers FT, and the like, will be referred to in this description as a well W, an example of which is well W12 indicated in FIG. 1.”; EXAMINER NOTE: the downhole pressure transducer and wellhead pressure transducers are at least two
PNG
media_image1.png
735
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
640
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
pressure gauges in the well)
, acquiring simulated pressures and corresponding simulated flow rates and simulated WCs (para 0003 “This invention is in the field of oil and gas production, and is more specifically directed to the real-time monitoring of fluid flow rates for multiple fluid phases from hydrocarbon wells.”; para 0057 “These hydraulic models calculate rate and phase, and in some cases reservoir pressure or other parameters, by matching calculations of downhole pressure or wellhead temperature (or both) by the well model to the actual measurements of those parameters”; EXAMINER NOTE: The calculated rate, phase, and downhole pressure produced by the hydraulic model are simulated flow rates, simulated water cuts, and simulated pressures); measuring pressures at the depths of the two pressure gauges via the two pressure gauges (para 0014 “These modern downhole sensors can now provide measurement data on a continuous and near real time basis, with measurement frequencies exceeding one-per-second.”; 0024 “temperature and pressure readings obtained from sensors at a well are applied to one or more predictive well models that calculate fluid rate and phase composition for that well”); comparing the measured pressures with the acquired simulated pressures (Fig 8. Element 51 depicts comparing new measure pressures with previously simulated pressures stored in the Database; para 0084 “Other information, including measured, assumed, and calculated values, may also be included in each entry Ew,t, in database 12.”; EXAMINER NOTE: The database stores previous
PNG
media_image3.png
845
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
measurements (i.e., pressure) of the well and the results of the simulation. Those are then compared in step 51 to newly collected measurements),
While Foot_2013 compares measured values and previously calculated outputs it does not explicitly teach “by calculating error values for the measured pressures with respect to the acquired simulated pressures; obtaining simulated flow rates and simulated WCs that correspond to the calculated error values not greater than a threshold; and averaging the simulated flow rates and simulated WCs that correspond to the simulated pressures that have the error values not greater than the threshold, to acquire an estimated flow rate and an estimated WC at the depths of the two pressure gauges”.
Turner_2012, however, makes obvious “comparing the measured pressures with the acquired simulated pressures (page 3; “Simulating the model to produce a data set that is then compared to the observed data is a technique that is used elsewhere to estimate parameters of computational models”; EXAMINER NOTE: The model produces simulated data (i.e., simulated pressures) and compares it to observed data (i.e., measured pressures)) , by calculating error values for the measured pressures with respect to the acquired simulated pressures (page 3; “It is common to use the sum of squared error between summary statistics of the simulated and observed data as a distance, and attempt to find point estimates of the parameters by minimizing the sum of squared error using standard optimization techniques… We then compare the simulated data X to the observed data Y by computing a distance between them given by a distance function ρ(X, Y)”; EXAMINER NOTE: A distance formula is also described in the instant specification paragraph 0032 as the error calculation); obtaining simulated flow rates and simulated WCs that correspond to the calculated error values not greater than a threshold (page 3 “We retain θ* as a sample from the posterior if some pre-defined distance ρ(X, Y) between the observed and simulated data is less than some small value ε0”; EXAMINER NOTE: θ* is a parameter (i.e., simulated water cut and flow rate) that corresponds to the simulated data (i.e., simulated pressure) less than a threshold ε0); and averaging the simulated flow rates and simulated WCs that correspond to the simulated pressures that have the error values not greater than the threshold (page 2 “The central tendency of the posterior (mode, median or mean) can be used as a point estimate for θ”; EXAMINER NOTE: The algorithm described produces a posterior (i.e., a histogram) from the data within a threshold that can be averaged), to acquire an estimated flow rate and an estimated WC at the depths of the two pressure gauges (page 2 “The central tendency of the posterior (mode, median or mean) can be used as a point estimate for θ”; EXAMINER NOTE: θ is the estimated parameter which is estimated flow rate and water cut).”
Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called parameter estimation using modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2013 and Turner_2012. The rationale for doing so would have been Foot_2013 teaches to collect multiple well model’s simulation data and record them in a database (para 0084; Fig. 8). Turner_2012 teaches to estimate parameters from preexisting simulation data by calculating errors between simulated and observed data and getting an average (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 for the benefit of collecting well simulation data and using the simulated data to estimate well parameters to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 12. The limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Foot_2013 makes obvious “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) storing instructions for performing operation that measures flow rate and water cut (WC) of a well, the operation comprising (claim 9 “A computer readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to perform a method of determining rate and phase of fluid produced from or injected into a well”)”.
Claim 2, 13. Foot_2012 and Turner_2012 teach the limitations of claim 1, 12. Foot_2012 also makes obvious “further comprising interpolating the acquired simulated pressures and the corresponding simulated flow rates and simulated WCs (para 0038 “FIGS. 10a and 10b are a graphic representations, illustrative of output from a calibrated predictive model showing downhole fluid pressure as a function of fluid rate for a range of constant gas-oil ratio values”; para 0065 “Examples of values that conventional models treats as constants, and that can be evaluated as functions according to the preferred embodiment of this invention, include reservoir pressure, productivity index, gas-oil ratio, and watercut”; Fig 3. Element 31 depicts the relationship between water cut and rate as a curve; EXAMINER NOTE: the relationship between pressure, fluid rate, and water cut is described as a function. Estimating a value of a function between two known values of the function is done by using the function. It should also be noted that interpolating additional simulated values could mean simply running additional simulations to obtain the values in between).
Claim 6. Foot_2013 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising installing the two pressure gauges inside the well (Figure 2 elements PT and WPT are pressure sensors inside the well; para 0048 “According to the preferred embodiment of the invention, and as known in the art, downhole pressure transducer PT is preferably disposed in completion string 4 at a depth that is above the influx from shallowest hydrocarbon bearing formation”; para 0049 “As mentioned above, additional sensors may also be deployed in connection with completion string 4, for purposes of the preferred embodiment of the invention, for example as shown in FIG. 2. Wellhead pressure and temperature transducers WPT, WTT, respectively, are deployed within production string 4 at or near wellhead 9, for sensing pressure and temperature for well W at the wellhead.”).”
Claim 7, 15. Foot_2012 and Turner_2012 teach the limitations of claim 1, 12. Foot_2013 also makes obvious “wherein the two pressure gauges are installed inside a tubing of the well where hydrocarbon fluid flows (para 0047 “FIG. 2 illustrates a portion of completion string 4 as disposed in a wellbore that passes into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation F. In this simplified schematic illustration, completion string 4 includes one or more concentric strings of production tubing disposed within wellbore 3, defining an annular space between the outside surface of the outermost production tubing and the wall of well bore 3”; para 0048 “According to the preferred embodiment of the invention, and as known in the art, downhole pressure transducer PT is preferably disposed in completion string 4 at a depth that is above the influx from shallowest hydrocarbon bearing formation”; para 0049 “Wellhead pressure and temperature transducers WPT, WTT, respectively, are deployed within production string 4 at or near wellhead 9, for sensing pressure and temperature for well W at the
PNG
media_image4.png
663
493
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wellhead.”).”
Claim 8, 18. Foot_2012 and Turner_2012 teach the limitations of claim 1, 12. Foot_2013 also makes obvious “further comprising developing a calibrated hydraulic simulation model that includes the data set (para 0100 “FIGS. 10a and 10b are graphic representations illustrative of output from a calibrated predictive hydraulic well model 27 suitable for this well W using these measurements, such a model corresponding to an inflow-and-tubing model, adjusted for GOR, and matched to wellhead temperature”; para 0031 “FIG. 3 is a graphical representation of the output of a well model according to the preferred embodiment of the invention.”; EXAMINER NOTE: The calibrated hydraulic models output Fig. 3 and Figs. 10a/10b as
PNG
media_image5.png
397
580
media_image5.png
Greyscale
visualizations of a dataset, which include pressure, flow rate, and water cut).”
PNG
media_image6.png
404
581
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 9, 19. Foot_2012 and Turner_2012 teach the limitations of claim 1, 12. Foot_2012 also makes obvious “wherein the hydraulic simulation model is calibrated to capture current completion (para 0057 “One class of these hydraulic models is based on models of both inflow and the production tubing that makes up completion string 4”; EXAMINER NOTE: instant specification paragraph 0023 describes completion as an input to the hydraulic simulation model. Foot_2013 describes how a model includes the production tubing, which is a type of completion), reservoir depth (para 0048 “as known in the art, downhole pressure transducer PT is preferably disposed in completion string 4 at a depth that is above the influx from shallowest hydrocarbon bearing formation”; para 0056 “In some cases, the well model is a one dimensional model calculating fluid properties as a function of length of the well”; EXAMINER NOTE: Instant specification does not define reservoir depth but paragraph 0023 describes the well depth as a parameter for the model. Foot_2013 describes how the well is at a depth to reach the hydrocarbon formation (i.e., reservoir) and is in the well model as a length), and flow rate and WC at the depths of the two pressure gauges (para 0024 “temperature and pressure readings obtained from sensors at a well are applied to one or more predictive well models that calculate fluid rate and phase composition for that well”; para 0048 “According to the preferred embodiment of the invention, and as known in the art, downhole pressure transducer PT is preferably disposed in completion string 4 at a depth that is above the influx from shallowest hydrocarbon bearing formation”; para 0049 “Wellhead pressure and temperature transducers WPT, WTT, respectively, are deployed within production string 4 at or near wellhead 9, for sensing pressure and temperature for well W at the wellhead.”; EXAMINER NOTE: flow rate and phase (i.e., water cut) are calculated using the model from two pressure sensors installed in the well at a depth).”
Claim(s) 3, 10, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2013 in view of Turner_2012 as applied to claims 1,12 above, and further in view of Shahri_2021 (US 2021/0302405 A1).
Claim 3, 14. Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1,12. Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 does not explicitly teach “wherein the depths of the two pressure gauges are below a bubble point depth of an extracted fluid of the well”.
Shahri_2021; however, makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the depths of the two pressure gauges are below a bubble point depth of an extracted fluid of the well (para 0032 “Two real-time sensors, such as one in a bottom hole of the well bore 102 and one near or at the surface 104, may be used. The pressure should be above bubble point across the pressure measurement points.”; EXAMINER NOTE: As described in instant specification paragraph 0027, a pressure above bubble point is the same as being deeper than the bubble point depth. Shahari discloses two pressure sensors that must measure pressures above bubble point, and therefore must be at a depth deeper than (i.e., below) bubble point).”
Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 and Shahri_2021 are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor called well water cut estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Foot_2013 and Shahri_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been Foot_2013 teaches using two pressure transducers to collect pressure data for a well model (para 0057). Shahri_2021 teaches pressure data should be above bubble point for well models to produce more accurate estimates of water cut (para 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foot_2013 and Shahri_2021 for the benefit of having two sensors collect pressure data above bubble point for more accurate estimations of water cut to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10, 20. Foot_2012 in view of Turner_2012 in view of Shahri_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1, 3, 12, 14. Shahri_2021 also makes obvious “wherein the two pressure gauges are permanent downhole measurement systems (para 0032” Two real-time sensors, such as one in a bottom hole of the well bore 102 and one near or at the surface 104, may be used.”; para 0033 “Utilizing the process 200A disclosed herein, it is possible to obtain continuous real-time water cut (WC) measurement despite a situation in which there is one flowmeter per drill site/platform, e.g., for multiple wells. This is possible because pressure/temperature sensors as described herein are very cost effective and readily available at the surface 104 and may be installed as part of wellhead sensors and at bottom-hole area, such as installed as part of ESPs or a Permanent Down Hole Monitoring System (PDHMS)”).”
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2013 in view of Turner_2012 as applied to claims 1,12 above, and further in view of Chen_2015 (US 2015/0176403 A1).
Claim 4, 16. Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1,12. Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 does not explicitly teach “sorting the acquired simulated flow rates and simulated WCs based on the calculated error values”.
PNG
media_image7.png
351
599
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Chen_2015; however, makes obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising sorting the acquired simulated flow rates and simulated WCs based on the calculated error values (Figure 16 shows a table flow and watercut are ordered least to greatest based of a distance which is a calculated error value; para 0091 “In block 1508, the pressure test controller 128 computes the distance between the measured initial pressure/slope values derived from information provided by the formation test tool 134 and the corresponding pressure/slope values of each of the results of a simulation stored in simulation results 414”; 0092 “The distance measurements indicate that simulations 4 and 5 of Tables 1200 and 1300 are closest to the measured initial pressure/slope values and corresponding pressure/slope values of simulations 4 and 5 are shown in columns Pref01 and Pref02 of Table 1600. The computed minimum distance values are shown in columns Dref01 and Dref02 of Table 1600.”)."
Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 and Chen_2015 are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor called parameter estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turner_2012 and Chen_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turner_2012 teaches to only retain values with the smallest calculated error values within a threshold (page 3). Chen_2015 teaches to organize calculated error values from smallest to largest to determine the values with minimum error (Fig. 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Turner_2012 and Chen_2015 for the benefit of collecting simulated values with the smallest determined errors to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5. Chen_2015 makes obvious “The method of claim 2, further comprising sorting the acquired simulated flow rates and simulated WCs based on the calculated error values (Figure 16 shows a table flow and watercut are ordered least to greatest based of a distance which is a calculated error value; 0091 “In block 1508, the pressure test controller 128 computes the distance between the measured initial pressure/slope values derived from information provided by the formation test tool 134 and the corresponding pressure/slope values of each of the results of a simulation stored in simulation results 414”; para 0092 “The distance measurements indicate that simulations 4 and 5 of Tables 1200 and 1300 are closest to the measured initial pressure/slope values and corresponding pressure/slope values of simulations 4 and 5 are shown in columns Pref01 and Pref02 of Table 1600. The computed minimum distance values are shown in columns Dref01 and Dref02 of Table 1600.”).”
Claim 11. Chen_2015 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge (para 0027 “The formation test tool 134 includes one or more packers, valves, or ports that may be opened and closed, and one or more pressure sensors.”), the measured pressures include a first measured pressure for the first pressure gauge (para 0090 “The initial measured pressure/slope values include Pdd1, Pbu1/Sbu1, Pij1, and Pbd1/Sbd1 values of Ptst”) and a second measured pressure for the second pressure gauge (para 0095 “The formation test tool 134 applies Qdd2 , and in block 1516 second pressure/slope values are measured. ( e.g., Pdd2 and Pbu2Sbu2 )”), and each of the error values is calculated by comparing the first measured pressure with a simulated pressure for a depth of the first pressure gauge (para 0092 “In some embodiments, the distance between the measured initial pressure/slope values and corresponding simulated pressure/slope values is computed as Euclidean distance.”; EXAMINER NOTE: Initial measured pressure is compared by calculating distance to initial simulated pressure) and by comparing the second measured pressure with a simulated pressure for a depth of the second pressure gauge (para 0096 “The pressure test controller 128 retrieves the second measured pressure/slope values (Pdd2 and Pbu2/Sbu2 and in), block 1518, computes the distance between the measured initial and second pressure/slope values and the corresponding pressure/slope values of each of the results of a simulation stored in simulation results 414”; EXAMINER NOTE: initial and second pressure values are compared to their corresponding simulated pressures).”
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foot_2013 in view of Turner_2012 in view of Shahri_2021 as applied to claims 14 above, and further in view of Chen_2015 (US 2015/0176403 A1).
Claim 17. Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 and Shahri_2021 make obvious all the limitations of claim 14. Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 and Shahri_2021 does not explicitly teach “wherein the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge, the measured pressures include a first measured pressure for the first pressure gauge and a second measured pressure for the second pressure gauge, and each of the error values is calculated by comparing the first measured pressure with a simulated pressure for a depth of the first pressure gauge and by comparing the second measured pressure with a simulated pressure for a depth of the second pressure gauge”.
Chen_2015; however, makes obvious “The CRM of claim 14, wherein the two pressure gauges include a first pressure gauge and a second pressure gauge (para 0027 “The formation test tool 134 includes one or more packers, valves, or ports that may be opened and closed, and one or more pressure sensors.”), the measured pressures include a first measured pressure for the first pressure gauge (para 0090 “The initial measured pressure/slope values include Pdd1, Pbu1/Sbu1, Pij1, and Pbd1/Sbd1 values of Ptst”) and a second measured pressure for the second pressure gauge (para 0095 The formation test tool 134 applies Qdd2 , and in block 1516 second pressure/slope values are measured. ( e.g., Pdd2 and Pbu2Sbu2 )”), and each of the error values is calculated by comparing the first measured pressure with a simulated pressure for a depth of the first pressure gauge (para 0092 “In some embodiments, the distance between the measured initial pressure/slope values and corresponding simulated pressure/slope values is computed as Euclidean distance.; EXAMINER NOTE: Initial measured pressure is compared by calculating distance to initial simulated pressure) and by comparing the second measured pressure with a simulated pressure for a depth of the second pressure gauge (para 0096 “The pressure test controller 128 retrieves the second measured pressure/slope values (Pdd2 and Pbu2/Sbu2 and in), block 1518, computes the distance between the measured initial and second pressure/slope values and the corresponding pressure/slope values of each of the results of a simulation stored in simulation results 414”; EXAMINER NOTE: initial and second pressure values are compared to their corresponding simulated pressures).
Foot_2013 and Turner_2012 and Shahri_2021 and Chen_2015 are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor called oil well estimation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Shahri_2021 and Chen_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been that Shahri_2021 teaches pressure data from two sensors above bubble point is more accurate data (para 0032). Chen_2015 teaches to compare simulated pressures with measured pressures to estimate well parameters (para 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shahri_2021 and Chen_2015 for the benefit of comparing accurate measured pressure data to simulated data and estimating well parameters to obtain the invention as specified by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Rincon_2021 (US 2021/0096010 A1) which discusses estimating flow rate and phase (i.e., water cut) of fluids flowing from subsea wells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (7:30 am - 5:30 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.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
