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 .
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, 3-7, and 10 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.
The term “comprehensive identification” in claims 3 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comprehensive identification” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since comprehensive identification can mean different things to different people.
The term “relevant” in claims 3, 6, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since relevant can mean different things to different people.
The term “highly similar” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since comprehensive can mean different things to different people.
The term “high speed” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since high speed can mean different things to different people.
The term “low density” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since low density can mean different things to different people.
The term “good porosity” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good porosity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since good porosity can mean different things to different people.
The term “relatively low speeds” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low speeds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since relatively low speeds can mean different things to different people.
The term “evenly” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “evenly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since evenly can mean different things to different people.
The term “high porosity” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high porosity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since high porosity can mean different things to different people.
The term “weak cementation” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “weak cementation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is indefinite since weak cementation can mean different things to different people.
Claim 10 depends on claim 7 which inherits the deficiencies of claim 7 (does not cure the deficiencies), and therefore, is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under the 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A forward physical simulation method for seismic response characteristics of a marine natural gas hydrate system, comprising:
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different areas;
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas;
and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system … of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized.
The limitations determining seismic response characteristics (one can observe results and perform critical thinking to parse and categorize data using a pen and paper) and correcting a seismic interpretation result (one can mentally observe a result and use critical thinking to make changes to the result, using a pen and paper to make said changes if need be) are abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental processes.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present:
A forward physical simulation method for seismic response characteristics of a marine natural gas hydrate system, comprising: (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different areas; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system … of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized. (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere insignificant application, 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 or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See referencing MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 1 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is an analysis of dependent claim 3 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim 3 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
The forward physical simulation method for seismic response characteristics of the marine natural gas hydrate system according to claim 1, further comprising the following steps:
step 1, selecting a specific research area; performing interpretation and analysis according to real seismic, geochemical and geological data; performing comprehensive identification of the natural gas hydrate system; and establishing an initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system;
step 2, by a preparation technology of artificial sandstone with high porosity and weak cementation, manufacturing cores that meet geophysical characteristic parameters of the natural gas hydrate-bearing reservoir and the free gas-bearing reservoir;
step 3, manufacturing a natural gas hydrate reservoir core and a free gas reservoir core respectively according to the initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system established in step 1; and analyzing reservoir speeds and density parameters;
step 4, testing the two prepared cores for artificial core porosity repeatability, sample homogeneity and sample stability;
step 5, setting relevant physical simulation parameters and other parameters respectively; and setting sizes of strata containing the natural gas hydrates and the free gas and an overall size of the model;
step 6, establishing a model of which the upper part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as gas hydrate charged sediments and the lower part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as free gas charged sediments in a water tank with a device for simulating launching and receiving of the seismic shot points;
and step 7, performing seismic forward simulation to obtain seismic response characteristics corresponding to a physical model of a specific hydrate system, which is used to guide a seismic interpretation scheme of actual seismic data in a specific study area.
The limitations performing interpretation and analysis (one can observe and apply critical thinking to analyze data using a pen and paper), performing comprehensive identification (one can apply observation and critical thinking enabled by mathematical equations for categorization and identification using pen and paper), analyzing reservoir speeds and density parameters (one can observe and apply critical thinking to analyze data using a pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 3 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present:
step 1, selecting a specific research area; performing interpretation and analysis according to real seismic, geochemical and geological data; performing comprehensive identification of the natural gas hydrate system; and establishing an initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system; (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2105.05(f))
step 2, by a preparation technology of artificial sandstone with high porosity and weak cementation, manufacturing cores that meet geophysical characteristic parameters of the natural gas hydrate-bearing reservoir and the free gas-bearing reservoir; (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f))
step 3, manufacturing a natural gas hydrate reservoir core and a free gas reservoir core respectively according to the initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system established in step 1; and analyzing reservoir speeds and density parameters; (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f))
step 4, testing the two prepared cores for artificial core porosity repeatability, sample homogeneity and sample stability; (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f))
step 5, setting relevant physical simulation parameters and other parameters respectively; and setting sizes of strata containing the natural gas hydrates and the free gas and an overall size of the model; (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f))
step 6, establishing a model of which the upper part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as gas hydrate charged sediments and the lower part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as free gas charged sediments in a water tank with a device for simulating launching and receiving of the seismic shot points; (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f))
and step 7, performing seismic forward simulation to obtain seismic response characteristics corresponding to a physical model of a specific hydrate system, which is used to guide a seismic interpretation scheme of actual seismic data in a specific study area. (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 3 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 mere instructions to apply an exception is carried over above and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(f).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 3 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 4 recites a limitation that fall under the scope of a mathematical processes/equation. Specifically, “and the reservoir speed and density parameters are analyzed”.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 8 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim 8 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
A computer device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program;
and when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor is made to perform the following steps:
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different research areas;
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas;
and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system according to a forward physical simulation result, so that forward physical simulation of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized.
The limitations determining seismic response characteristics (one can observe results and perform critical thinking to parse and categorize data using a pen and paper) and correcting a seismic interpretation result (one can mentally observe a result and use critical thinking to make changes to the result, using a pen and paper to make said changes if need be) are abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental processes.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 8 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present:
A computer device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program; (Field of Use and Technological Environment being mere generally linking, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
and when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor is made to perform the following steps: (Field of Use and Technological Environment being mere generally linking, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different research areas; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system according to a forward physical simulation result, so that forward physical simulation of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized. (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2105.05(f)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 8 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 Field of use and Technological Environment being merely generally linking and mere instructions to apply an exception above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(h), referencing MPEP § 2105.05(f)).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 8 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 is adding a list of numerical values to claim 3, and claim 3 was rejected as ineligible above. So, claim 6 remains ineligible as it is specifying mathematical/numerical variable values for use in the calculations of claim 3, which is within the scope of mathematical relationships. As a result, it remains ineligible for the same reasons as set forth for claims 1 and 3.
Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 3. Therefore, claim 7 is also rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 7 and does not cure any of the deficiencies of claim 7. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 111487681 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang (CN 111487681 A) teaches:
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different areas; (Page 5: The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs provided by the embodiments of the present invention is based on the geological model of natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on preliminary seismic interpretation, with reference to the main frequency of earthquakes in specific work areas. , wavelet length, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters to forward model the seismic wave response caused by different hydrate/free gas geological models, and finally compare the simulated seismic wave with the actual seismic response characteristics, and correct the natural gas Seismic interpretation of hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs)
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas; and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system according to a forward physical simulation result, so that forward physical simulation of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized. (Page 5: S107, correcting the previous seismic interpretation of the natural gas hydrate and the underlying free gas reservoir by comparing the seismic wave response simulated by the forward modeling with the actual seismic response characteristics.)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Munoz (Exploring the Groß Schönebeck (Germany) geothermal site using a statistical joint interpretation of magnetotelluric and seismic tomography models), in further view of Zhang (CN 107817522 A).
Yang teaches:
by establishing the physical model that meets geophysical characteristics of a natural gas hydrate system reservoir, performing the seismic forward simulation; (Page 3: Therefore, it is very necessary to carry out the numerical simulation of the seismic forward modeling of the natural gas hydrate system in the specific work area, analyze the seismic response mode of the natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoir with different thicknesses under a certain main frequency of the earthquake, and understand the seismic wave in the more complex natural gas. )
and whether a bottom interface of a natural gas hydrate stability zone between the hydrate-bearing reservoir and the underlying free gas reservoir strictly corresponds to BSR seismic reflection characteristics. (Page 6: (1) the BSR in this area is not an obvious reflector layer with continuous distribution of strong amplitude, but is represented as a line connecting the strongest wave trough at the top of the strong amplitude reflection near the underlying free gas; (2) Both the hydrate-bearing formation in the upper part of the BSR and the free gas-bearing formation in the lower part of the BSR will cause high-amplitude anomalies, but the amplitude anomaly caused by the free gas in the lower part is stronger; (3) the hydrate-bearing formation in the upper part of the BSR is located in the lower formation with high-amplitude anomalies, That is, high-amplitude anomalies appear on top of hydrate-bearing formations. The free gas-bearing formations in the lower part of the BSR are located in the upper formations with high-amplitude anomalies, that is, the high-amplitude anomalies appear at the bottom of the free gas-bearing formations. The forward modeling results indicate that in seismic interpretation, the lower formation with high amplitude anomalies in the upper part of the BSR should be interpreted as hydrate-bearing formations, and the upper formations with high amplitude anomalies in the lower part of the BSR should be interpreted as free gas-bearing formations.)_
Yang does not teach:
simulating the launching and receiving of seismic shot points;
and establishing relationships between each interface in the natural gas hydrate system and the seismic response characteristics;
wherein the seismic response characteristics comprise seismic response characteristics of top and bottom interfaces of a hydrate-bearing reservoir, seismic response characteristics of top and bottom interfaces of a free gas-bearing reservoir,
However, Munoz teaches:
simulating the launching and receiving of seismic shot points; (Page 40: The MT profile is spatially coincident with the seismic tomography profile and most of the stations were located at the same places as the seismic shot points. At all sites, we recorded horizontal electric and magnetic field components and the vertical magnetic field.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the seismic shot points of Munoz “the seismic shot points” with the simulations of Yang “the simulated seismic response It is consistent with the actual seismic response characteristics” in order to improve accuracy of seismic results “The significance of solving the above problems and defects is: the current seismic interpretation usually directly interprets the natural gas hydrate system (BSR and its upper and lower hydrate layers and free gas areas) by experience, while this method uses The seismic response characteristics of the underlying free gas reservoirs and the underlying free gas reservoirs are analyzed to verify and correct the previous seismic interpretation results, which can improve the accuracy of the seismic interpretation results of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas reservoirs, and provide the basis for the exploration and development of natural gas hydrates in this area”.
Zhang teaches:
establishing relationships between each interface in the natural gas hydrate system and the seismic response characteristics; (Page 4: On seismic sections, gas hydrates usually appear as a strong reflector, roughly parallel to the seafloor, which basically represents the bottom boundary of the hydrate stability zone. In the project of predicting hydrates, it will be able to reflect the properties of hydrates. Through information fusion methods, the properties of identifying hydrates will be obtained, and then collaborative kriging modeling will be carried out, followed by inversion, so as to achieve deterministic and qualitative identification of hydrates. The purpose of the bottom interface.)
wherein the seismic response characteristics comprise seismic response characteristics of top and bottom interfaces of a hydrate-bearing reservoir, seismic response characteristics of top and bottom interfaces of a free gas-bearing reservoir, (Page 4: In summary, the present invention can reduce the limitation and multi-solution interference brought by a single technology, find the favorable target of hydrate more accurately, and identify the top-bottom interface of hydrate; the present invention will sensitive Attributes, weight coefficients, information fusion, collaborative kriging algorithm, modeling, inversion and other key links are connected in series to fuse a variety of valuable information together to reduce the limitations and multi-solution interference brought by a single technology The prediction of the top-bottom interface of offshore hydrates by this method is objective and clear, especially the bottom interface BSR of the hydrate stability zone, which is well in line with the geological understanding of hydrates; in addition, the inversion method in the present invention has high precision, It has the characteristics of high reliability and wide application range.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine “Through information fusion methods, the properties of identifying hydrates will be obtained,” of Zhang with the with natural gas hydrate system of Yang “analyze the seismic response mode of the natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoir” and Munoz “exploring geothermal site” to perform " deterministic and qualitative identification of hydrates."
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Svarczkopf (US 11092586 B1), in view of Al-Homadhi (Artificial Sandstone Cores Production with a Wide Range of Petrophysical Properties), in view of Anderson (Wettability Literature SurveyPart 1 : Rock/Oil/Brine Interactions and the Effects of Core Handlingon Wettability), in view of Monchao (Physical modeling of an underground roadway excavation in vertically stratified rock using infrared thermography), in view of Yi-Fei (Gas production from unsealed hydrate-bearing sediments after reservoir reformation in a large-scale simulator), in further view of Munoz ((Exploring the Groß Schönebeck (Germany) geothermal site using a statistical joint interpretation of magnetotelluric and seismic tomography models).
Regarding Claim 3,
Yang teaches:
step 1, selecting a specific research area; (Page 5: S101, make a preliminary explanation of the natural gas hydrate system in the specific work area)
performing interpretation and analysis according to real seismic, geochemical and geological data; (Page 2: the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data)
and establishing an initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system; (Page 3: This method requires the geological model of gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on seismic data parameters and preliminary seismic interpretation results to carry out forward modeling analysis)
and analyzing reservoir speeds and density parameters; (Page 3: Therefore, before the seismic interpretation work is carried out, the main frequency, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters of the seismic data should be fully analyzed)
step 5, setting relevant physical simulation parameters and other parameters respectively; (Page 3: In the forward modeling process, parameters such as the main frequency of the earthquake, wavelet length, reservoir velocity, and density of the specific work area will be referred to, and the harmonic thickness corresponding to the resolution limit of the seismic data will be determined)
step 7, performing seismic forward simulation to obtain seismic response characteristics corresponding to a physical model of a specific hydrate system, which is used to guide a seismic interpretation scheme of actual seismic data in a specific study area. (Page 3: Therefore, it is very necessary to carry out the numerical simulation of the seismic forward modeling of the natural gas hydrate system in the specific work area, analyze the seismic response mode of the natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoir with different thicknesses under a certain main frequency of the earthquake, and understand the seismic wave in the more complex natural gas. )
Yang does not explicitly teach:
step 2, by a preparation technology of artificial sandstone with high porosity and weak cementation, manufacturing cores that meet geophysical characteristic parameters of the natural gas hydrate-bearing reservoir and the free gas-bearing reservoir;
step 3, manufacturing a natural gas hydrate reservoir core and a free gas reservoir core respectively according to the initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system established in step 1;
step 4, testing the two prepared cores for artificial core porosity repeatability, sample homogeneity and sample stability;
and setting sizes of strata containing the natural gas hydrates and the free gas and an overall size of the model;
step 6, establishing a model of which the upper part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as gas hydrate charged sediments and t he lower part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as free gas ch arged sediments in a water tank with a device for simulating launching and receiving of the seismic shot points;
However, Al-Homadhi teaches:
step 2, by a preparation technology of artificial sandstone (Al-Homadhi, Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to simulate natural sandstone rock and come-up with a homogeneous compacted rock with known properties.) (Al-Homadhi, Abstract: These factors are grain size, cementing material concentration…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine artificial sandstone of Al-Homadhi “simulate natural sandstone rock” with Yang to attempt a new method of homogenous rock/core manufacturing “come-up with a homogeneous compacted rock with known properties. Many scholars investigated the effect of some sedimentation and compaction factors on rock properties, but few attempts to manufacture an artificial sandstone matrix with wide ranges of rock properties were made.” as recited by Al-Homadhi.
Svarczkopf teaches:
with high porosity and weak cementation, manufacturing cores that meet geophysical characteristic parameters of the natural gas hydrate-bearing reservoir and the free gas-bearing reservoir; (Svarczkopf, Page 11, line 10-15: Invention 10 may utilize a composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings. The cuttings are oil saturated by homogenous kneading and placed into a compactor device that can make a core of varied porosity that ranges from 5% porosity to 20% porosity with the preferred embodiment being that composite core 15 porosity results in pore space that holds 5.7 ml of oil per 57 mg of cuttings.)
step 3, manufacturing a natural gas hydrate reservoir core and a free gas reservoir core respectively according to the initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system established in step 1; (Page 11, line 10-15: Invention 10 may utilize a composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings. The cuttings are oil saturated by homogenous kneading and placed into a compactor device that can make a core of varied porosity that ranges from 5% porosity to 20% porosity with the preferred embodiment being that composite core 15 porosity results in pore space that holds 5.7 ml of oil per 57 mg of cuttings.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the core making process “composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings” of Svarczkopf to attempt a new method of homogenous rock/core manufacturing “come-up with a homogeneous compacted rock with known properties. Many scholars investigated the effect of some sedimentation and compaction factors on rock properties, but few attempts to manufacture an artificial sandstone matrix with wide ranges of rock properties were made.” with the specific reservoir types of Yang as modified by Al-Homadhi “The invention belongs to the technical field of natural gas hydrate, and in particular relates to a method for analyzing seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs.” (citations to Yang).
Anderson teaches:
step 4, testing the two prepared cores for artificial core porosity repeatability, sample homogeneity and sample stability; (Anderson: Introduction: For core analysis to predict the behavior of a reservoir accurately)
It would have been obvious to combine the core analysis of Anderson “For core analysis to predict the behavior of a reservoir accurately” with the “accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates” of Yang as modified by Al-Homadhi and Svarczkopf in order to better understand seismic data as recited by Yang “mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data”.
Monchao teaches:
and setting sizes of strata containing the natural gas hydrates and the free gas and an overall size of the model; (Page 2: A large number of the elementary slabs were assembled in layers with the specified mechanical properties, simulating the rock strata of the sandstone, mudstone and coal seam. The integration of the layers with elementary slabs of the same type constitutes the “artificial rock stratum”, also referred to as “rock stratum” thereafter. The physical model was built with total nine strata, including one sandstone stratum, four mudstone strata and four coal seam strata. All the strata were inclined at an angle of 90° with respect to the horizontal, to mimic the geologically vertical strata.) It would have been obvious to combine the strata spec setting of Monchao “the specified mechanical properties, simulating the rock strata of the sandstone” with the models of Yang as modified by Al-Homadhi, Svarczkopf, and Anderson “geological model of gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs” for better seismic data understanding as recited by Yang “the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data”.
Yi-Fei teaches:
step 6, establishing a model of which the upper part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as gas hydrate charged sediments and the lower part is a stratum with similar physical properties (density and velocity) as free gas charged sediments in a water tank; (Yi-Fei, Page 3: The preparation process of the hydrate-bearing sediments sample is basically consistent with our previous researches [38]. Furthermore, we added a high permeable overlying sand layer to simulate the overburden where the subsequent reservoir reformation process was carried out, as well as an overlying aquifer with a constant pressure to simulate the unsealed water-rich environment.)
Munoz teaches:
with a device for simulating launching and receiving of the seismic shot points (Munoz, Page 40: The MT profile is spatially coincident with the seismic tomography profile and most of the stations were located at the same places as the seismic shot points. At all sites, we recorded horizontal electric and magnetic field components and the vertical magnetic field.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the water environment of Yi-Fei “Then a water tank at ∼4.3 MPa was connected to the reactor top to simulate the upper water infiltration process” with the seismic shot points of Munoz “the seismic tomography profile and most of the stations were located at the same places as the seismic shot points”, with the model of modified Yang “The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs” in order to better collect better seismic and hydrate data “The detailed calculation method of the hydrate saturation”, “the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data”.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Scarczkopf, further in view of Al-Homadhi, further in view of Munoz, and further in view of Monchao.
Regarding Claim 7,
Yang teaches:
an initial geological model establishment module, which is configured to select a specific research area, perform interpretation and analysis according to real seismic, geochemical and geological data, perform comprehensive identification of the natural gas hydrate system, and establish an initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system; (The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs provided by the embodiments of the present invention is based on the geological model of natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on preliminary seismic interpretation, with reference to the main frequency of earthquakes in specific work areas. , wavelet length, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters to forward model the seismic wave response caused by different hydrate/free gas geological models, and finally compare the simulated seismic wave with the actual seismic response characteristics, and correct the natural gas Seismic interpretation of hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs. This method requires the geological model of gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on seismic data parameters and preliminary seismic interpretation results to carry out forward modeling analysis. The distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data)
a model establishment module, which is configured to establish a model of which the upper part is a stratum containing the natural gas hydrates (Yang: The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs provided by the embodiments of the present invention is based on the geological model of natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on preliminary seismic interpretation, with reference to the main frequency of earthquakes in specific work areas. , wavelet length, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters to forward model the seismic wave response caused by different hydrate/free gas geological models, and finally compare the simulated seismic wave with the actual seismic response characteristics, and correct the natural gas Seismic interpretation of hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs);
and a seismic forward simulation module, which is configured to simulate launching and receiving of the seismic shot points and perform seismic forward simulation to obtain seismic response characteristics corresponding to a physical model of a specific hydrate system, which is used to guide a seismic interpretation scheme of actual seismic data in a specific study area. (The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs provided by the embodiments of the present invention is based on the geological model of natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on preliminary seismic interpretation, with reference to the main frequency of earthquakes in specific work areas. , wavelet length, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters to forward model the seismic wave response caused by different hydrate/free gas geological models, and finally compare the simulated seismic wave with the actual seismic response characteristics, and correct the natural gas Seismic interpretation of hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs. This method requires the geological model of gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on seismic data parameters and preliminary seismic interpretation results to carry out forward modeling analysis. The distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data).
Yang does not teach:
a reservoir core manufacturing module, which is configured to, by a preparation technology of artificial sandstone
and analyze reservoir speeds and density parameters;
an artificial core testing module, which is configured to test the two prepared cores for artificial core porosity repeatability, sample homogeneity and sample stability; a parameter setting module, which is configured to set relevant physical simulation parameters and other parameters respectively, and set sizes of strata containing the natural gas hydrates and the free gas and an overall size of the model.
Al-Homadhi teaches:
a reservoir core manufacturing module, which is configured to, by a preparation technology of artificial sandstone (Al-Homadhi, Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to simulate natural sandstone rock and come-up with a homogeneous compacted rock with known properties.) (Al-Homadhi, Abstract: These factors are grain size, cementing material concentration…).
Svarczkkopf teaches:
with high porosity and weak cementation, manufacture cores that meet geophysical characteristic parameters of the natural gas hydrate-bearing reservoir and the free gas-bearing reservoir, manufacture a natural gas hydrate reservoir core and a free gas reservoir core respectively according to the initial geological model of the natural gas hydrate system established (Svarczkopf, Page 11, line 10-15: Invention 10 may utilize a composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings. The cuttings are oil saturated by homogenous kneading and placed into a compactor device that can make a core of varied porosity that ranges from 5% porosity to 20% porosity with the preferred embodiment being that composite core 15 porosity results in pore space that holds 5.7 ml of oil per 57 mg of cuttings.)
and analyze reservoir speeds and density parameters; (Yang: Therefore, before the seismic interpretation work is carried out, the main frequency, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters of the seismic data should be fully analyzed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine artificial sandstone of Al-Homadhi “simulate natural sandstone rock” with the core making process “composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings” of Svarczkopf, with the analysis of Yang “seismic data should be fully analyzed” to attempt a new method of homogenous rock/core manufacturing “come-up with a homogeneous compacted rock with known properties. Many scholars investigated the effect of some sedimentation and compaction factors on rock properties, but few attempts to manufacture an artificial sandstone matrix with wide ranges of rock properties were made.” as recited by Al-Homadhi.
Al-Homadhi teaches:
an artificial core testing module, which is configured to test the two prepared cores for artificial core porosity repeatability (Al-Homadhi, Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to simulate natural sandstone rock and come-up with a homogeneous compacted rock with known properties.).
Svarczkopf teaches:
sample homogeneity and sample stability; a parameter setting module, which is configured to set relevant physical simulation parameters and other parameters respectively (Svarczkopf, Invention 10 may utilize a composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings. The cuttings are oil saturated by homogenous kneading and placed into a compactor device that can make a core of varied porosity that ranges from 5% porosity to 20% porosity with the preferred embodiment being that composite core 15 porosity results in pore space that holds 5.7 ml of oil per 57 mg of cuttings.)
Monchao teaches:
set sizes of strata containing the natural gas hydrates and the free gas and an overall size of the model (Monchao, Page 2: A large number of the elementary slabs were assembled in layers with the specified mechanical properties, simulating the rock strata of the sandstone, mudstone and coal seam. The integration of the layers with elementary slabs of the same type constitutes the “artificial rock stratum”, also referred to as “rock stratum” thereafter. The physical model was built with total nine strata, including one sandstone stratum, four mudstone strata and four coal seam strata. All the strata were inclined at an angle of 90° with respect to the horizontal, to mimic the geologically vertical strata.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the artificial sandstone of Al-Homadhi “simulate natural sandstone rock” with the core making process “composite core 15 that is made from drill cuttings” of Svarczkopf, with the strata setting of Monchao “simulating the rock strata of the sandstone” with the analysis of Yang “seismic data should be fully analyzed” to better collect better seismic and hydrate data “The detailed calculation method of the hydrate saturation”, “the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data” as recited by Yang.
Yi-Fe teaches:
the lower part is a stratum containing the free gas in a water tank (Yi-Fe, Page 3i: The preparation process of the hydrate-bearing sediments sample is basically consistent with our previous researches [38]. Furthermore, we added a high permeable overlying sand layer to simulate the overburden where the subsequent reservoir reformation process was carried out, as well as an overlying aquifer with a constant pressure to simulate the unsealed water-rich environment.)
Munoz teaches:
with a device for simulating launching and receiving of the seismic shot points; (Munoz: Page 40: The MT profile is spatially coincident with the seismic tomography profile and most of the stations were located at the same places as the seismic shot points. At all sites, we recorded horizontal electric and magnetic field components and the vertical magnetic field.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the seismic shot points of Munoz “seismic shot points” with the water tank of Yi-Fei “Then a water tank at ∼4.3 MPa was connected to the reactor top to simulate the upper water infiltration process” the model establishment of modified Yang “The forward modeling and analysis method… established based on preliminary seismic interpretation” to better collect better seismic and hydrate data “The detailed calculation method of the hydrate saturation”, “the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data” as recited by Yang.
Regarding Claim 10, Yang (CN 111487681 A) teaches:
An information data processing terminal, used for realizing the forward physical simulation system for the seismic response characteristics of the marine natural gas hydrate system of claim 7. (Page 5: S107, correcting the previous seismic interpretation of the natural gas hydrate and the underlying free gas reservoir by comparing the seismic wave response simulated by the forward modeling with the actual seismic response characteristics.)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Lun (Gas hydrate and associated free gas in the Dongsha Area of northern South China Sea).
Regarding Claim 8,
Yang teaches:
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different research areas; (The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs provided by the embodiments of the present invention is based on the geological model of natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on preliminary seismic interpretation, with reference to the main frequency of earthquakes in specific work areas. , wavelet length, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters to forward model the seismic wave response caused by different hydrate/free gas geological models, and finally compare the simulated seismic wave with the actual seismic response characteristics, and correct the natural gas Seismic interpretation of hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs)
and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system according to a forward physical simulation result, so that forward physical simulation of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized. (S107, correcting the previous seismic interpretation of the natural gas hydrate and the underlying free gas reservoir by comparing the seismic wave response simulated by the forward modeling with the actual seismic response characteristics.)
Yang does not teach:
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas;
Lun further teaches:
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas; (Page 2: In this study, we present seismic evidence for the existence of gas hydrates and free gas beneath Jiulong Methane Reef. We applied a variety of seismic techniques to delineate the distribution of gas hydrate in more detail.)
It would have been obvious to combine the hydrate and free gas seismic evidence of Lun “present seismic evidence for the existence of gas hydrates and free gas beneath” with the seismic analysis of Yang to better collect better seismic and hydrate data “the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data” as recited by Yang.
Regarding Claim 9,
Yang teaches:
establishing different physical models for distribution characteristics of hydrate systems in different research areas; (The forward modeling and analysis method for the seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs provided by the embodiments of the present invention is based on the geological model of natural gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on preliminary seismic interpretation, with reference to the main frequency of earthquakes in specific work areas. , wavelet length, reservoir velocity, density and other parameters to forward model the seismic wave response caused by different hydrate/free gas geological models, and finally compare the simulated seismic wave with the actual seismic response characteristics, and correct the natural gas Seismic interpretation of hydrate and underlying free gas reservoirs. This method requires the geological model of gas hydrate/free gas reservoirs established based on seismic data parameters and preliminary seismic interpretation results to carry out forward modeling analysis. The distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data)
and correcting a seismic interpretation result of the natural gas hydrate system according to a forward physical simulation result, so that forward physical simulation of the marine natural gas hydrate system is realized. (S107, correcting the previous seismic interpretation of the natural gas hydrate and the underlying free gas reservoir by comparing the seismic wave response simulated by the forward modeling with the actual seismic response characteristics.)
Yang does not teach:
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas;
However, Lun teaches:
determining seismic response characteristics of natural gas hydrates and underlying free gas; (Page 2: In this study, we present seismic evidence for the existence of gas hydrates and free gas beneath Jiulong Methane Reef. We applied a variety of seismic techniques to delineate the distribution of gas hydrate in more detail.)
It would have been obvious to combine the hydrate and free gas seismic evidence of Lun “present seismic evidence for the existence of gas hydrates and free gas beneath” with the seismic analysis of Yang to better collect better seismic and hydrate data “the distribution and accumulation patterns and accumulation patterns of natural gas hydrates are mainly understood by interpreting and analyzing seismic, logging and geochemical data” as recited by Yang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, including amendments to overcome any 35 US 101 rejections and/or 35 USC 112 rejections.
None of the prior art or record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations as specified in claims 4-6. Specifically,
Claim 4: “The forward physical simulation method for seismic response characteristics of the marine natural gas hydrate system according to claim 3, wherein in step 2, according to characteristics that the hydrate is an organic crystal material, is in a solid state at normal temperature and pressure, can be prepared into powder, has similar elastic parameters to the hydrate, and has a high speed and low density, an alternative material with the characteristics highly similar to the natural gas hydrate is selected; and the reservoir speed and density parameters are analyzed;
wherein loose sediments have the characteristics of good porosity and relatively low speeds of longitudinal and transverse waves; after many tests, conditions of a small diagenetic pressure of 0.5-1.0MPa, a low cement content of 5% and containing of formation water are finally selected for diagenesis; and the cores meeting requirements of the hydrate reservoirs are manufactured.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-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.
/HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
