DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on December 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 1 discloses “a computer-implemented method.” Claim 1, line 8 discloses “using the current steady-state pressure distribution for hydrocarbon management.” It is unclear how a computer performs hydrocarbon management; e.g., hydrocarbon extraction/hydrocarbon production (drilling)/hydrocarbon exploration. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of the present examination, the current steady-state pressure distribution is output for hydrocarbon management. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
determining and using current steady-state pressure distribution in a subsurface, the method comprising:
determining paleo phase pressure distribution for at least a part of the subsurface;
accessing current phase pressures for the at least a part of the subsurface;
determining, by iteratively determining hysteresis scanning curves using the paleo phase pressure distribution and the current phase pressures, the current steady-state pressure distribution in the at least a part of the subsurface; and
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses determining and using current steady-state pressure distribution in a subsurface, the method comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; determining paleo phase pressure distribution for at least a part of the subsurface; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; accessing current phase pressures for the at least a part of the subsurface; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; determining, by iteratively determining hysteresis scanning curves using the paleo phase pressure distribution and the current phase pressures, the current steady-state pressure distribution in the at least a part of the subsurface; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
A computer-implemented method of
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
using the current steady-state pressure distribution for hydrocarbon management.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-15 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
EXAMINER COMMENT
US 2015/0142407 A1 to Wakefield et al., hereinafter Wakefield is regarded as applicable prior art to the invention of claim 1. Wakefield may be relied upon as explicitly disclosing: receiving fluid saturation data associated with phase relative permeabilities of a multidimensional spatial model of a subsurface; e.g., see fig. 4 and para. [0019]; optimizing a quadratic function to adjust a fluid saturation and provide an adjusted fluid saturation; e.g., see fig. 4 and paras. [0088]-[0089]; and simulating a flow of fluid utilizing the adjusted fluid saturation; e.g., see paras. [0086], [0089], [0092], [0095]-[0097], and [0099]-[0101]. Wakefield discloses in fig. 10 and paras. [0139]-[0142] a process of hysteresis comparing draining and imbibition showing permeability and saturation can follow different “paths” for drainage and imbibition. Wakefield, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest: iteratively determining hysteresis scanning curves using a paleo phase pressure distribution and a current phase pressure to determine a current steady-state pressure distribution, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
US 2021/0080371 A1 to Johns et al., hereinafter Johns is regarded as applicable prior art to the invention of claim 1. Johns discloses setting an equation-of-state for calculating any one of a relative permeability, capillary pressure, and absolute permeability by representing a change in the relative permeability, a change in the capillary pressure, and a change in absolute permeability as a state function of a sum of changes in dimensionless parameters including phase saturations of the one or more phases and normalized Euler characteristics of the one or more phases; e.g., see para. [0076]; calculating block pressures, updating compositions from a previous time step flux; and performing calculations of phase saturations and phase compositions; e.g., see paras. [0076]-[0077] and eqn. 1; finding a phase associated matrix for neighboring grid blocks and a previous time step to identify similar phases from the previous time step and between the neighboring grid blocks; e.g., see; and solving the equation-of-state to obtain the relative permeability, the capillary pressure, or the absolute permeability to calculate fluxes of the fluid between the neighboring grid blocks based on the matrix; e.g., see paras. [0076]-[0077], [0111], and [0120]-[0123]. Johns may also be relied upon as explicitly showing a hysteresis between capillary pressure and water saturation; e.g., see fig. 16. However, Johns, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest: iteratively determining hysteresis scanning curves using a paleo phase pressure distribution and a current phase pressure to determine a current steady-state pressure distribution, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
US 2014/0019053 A1 to de Prisco, hereinafter de Prisco is regarded as applicable prior art to the invention of claim 1. de Prisco discloses estimating a relative permeability, wherein the process of estimating a relative permeability includes performing a precursor simulation of a 3D porous medium having an inlet and outlet plane; e.g., see figs. 3-4 and para. [0055]; performing a second simulation over a second computation domain of the 3D porous medium which also comprises an inlet and outlet plane, wherein the second simulation is repeated for each stored set of index values from the precursor simulation until a steady state of reached based on each set of index values, the distributions of pressure, saturation and flow rates of the wetting and non-wetting phases are stored; e.g., see paras. [0055]-[0057] and [0061]-[0062]. de Prisco discloses a hysteresis scan of wetting phase saturation to relative permeability, which is not construed as a pressure-phase distribution, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest: iteratively determining hysteresis scanning curves using a paleo phase pressure distribution and a current phase pressure to determine a current steady-state pressure distribution, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 8,437,997 B2 to Meurer et al. relates to Dynamic Connectivity Analysis.
US 7,054,749 B1 to O’Meara, Jr. relates to a method for determining reservoir fluid volumes, fluid contacts, compartmentalization, and permeability in geological subsurface models.
US 2024/0411954 A1 to Subbiah et al. relates to a reservoir simulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863