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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/337,822 filed on 06/20/2023. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/24/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a resistivity image of an earth formation surrounding a borehole;
identifying, based on the resistivity image, a plurality of flow members in the earth formation surrounding the borehole; and
providing the identified plurality of flow members for well completion or sampling of the borehole.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of “non-transitory computer readable medium” Claim 10 and “system” claim 16.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 10 is a “non-transitory” computer-readable medium and claim 16 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and/or a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “identifying” flow members and “providing” the identified flow members which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to identify flow members for the intended use of well completion or further sampling and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations, e.g. see dependent claims 5-7 describing that the “identifying” includes a calculation of RQI and Spec. [0068]-[0069], in order to identify the flow members.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 16.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “receiving a resistivity image of an earth formation surrounding a borehole” however these elements are found to be data gathering steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”.
Furthermore, the claims recite that the steps, e.g. “identifying” and “providing”, are implemented by a “computer” (claim 1), “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system” (claim 10), and “A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations” (claim 16) however these elements are found to be equivalent to adding the words “apply it” and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a general purpose computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using a “computer”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a general purpose computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the result of providing the identified flow members instead the claim merely recites the intended use at a high level which does not integrate into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 1, 10, and 16). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 10 and 16, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1, 10, and 16.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and introduces the additional elements of “receiving” additional information and updating the cut-off value “using a machine learning model” however this merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and the use of a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea, respectively. Therefore, for similar reasons as described above, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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(s) 1-4, 10-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdulkarim et al. US20200271820A1 (hereinafter “Abdulkarim”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16,
Abdulkarim teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising: ([0016]: “computer system”)
receiving a resistivity image of an earth formation surrounding a borehole; (Fig. 5; [0011]; [0030]: “Third Track 530 shows a micro-resistivity histogram, with average micro-resistivity 532 and calculated conductive pixels cutoffs 534. Shaded area 536, the interval to the left of the cutoffs 534, represents an area where conductive pixels are.”)
identifying, based on the resistivity image, a plurality of flow members in the earth formation surrounding the borehole; (Fig. 5; [0011]: “In a micro-resistivity image, voids encountered during drilling in a water-based mud (WBM) system are filled with conductive fluid and displayed as darker, conductive pixels. The introduced method identifies and determines a number of these conductive pixels from a histogram that is generated from a micro-resistivity image of micro-resistivity values measured from a section of a well.”; [0012]: “The introduced method also includes partitioning of a horizontal section based on the derived permeability profiles and petrophysical attributes because the determination of lateral permeability variations is a critical factor for optimizing the stimulation and completion design.”; [0043]: “partitioning the best-flowing intervals in the formations“)
providing the identified plurality of flow members for well completion or sampling of the borehole. ([0043]: “the method 600 may include additional steps of managing the well using the using the porosity-independent permeability indicator. For example, the method 600 may include steps of optimizing and implementing a completion design, such as partitioning the best-flowing intervals in the formations using a petrophysical attribute such as a rock mechanical moduli, a brittleness and/or a porosity and the lateral permeability variation from the porosity-independent permeability indicator, and performing a completion operation on such intervals.”; [0012]: “The introduced method also includes partitioning of a horizontal section based on the derived permeability profiles and petrophysical attributes because the determination of lateral permeability variations is a critical factor for optimizing the stimulation and completion design.”)
Claims 10 and 16 recite the same or substantially similar claim limitations as independent claim 1 merely further reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising:” (claim 10) and “A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations comprising:” (claim 16) which is also further taught by Abdulkarim [0048]-[0049] describing implementing the described method(s) on a computer system comprising processor and memory and thus claims 10 and 16 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 for the same reasons as described above for representative claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17,
Abdulkarim further teaches: wherein identifying the plurality of flow members comprises:
generating, using a cutoff value for the resistivity image, a contrast-enhanced resistivity image for the resistivity image; (Fig. 5; [0026]: “More specifically, the processor 456 can determine the number of conductive pixels in the histogram by calculating an average value of the micro-resistivity values at the certain depth, determining an invasion indicator using a separation between shallow and deep laterolog resistivity measurements at the certain depth from the laterolog tool 412, and deriving a cutoff value at the certain depth based on the average value and the invasion indicator. The conductive pixels are pixels that have micro-resistivity values less than the cutoff value.“; [0030]: “Third Track 530 shows a micro-resistivity histogram, with average micro-resistivity 532 and calculated conductive pixels cutoffs 534. Shaded area 536, the interval to the left of the cutoffs 534, represents an area where conductive pixels are.”, [0011]: “and displayed as darker, conductive pixels.”)
identifying, based on the contrast-enhanced resistivity image, the plurality of flow members in the earth formation surrounding the borehole. (Fig. 5; [0011]: “In a micro-resistivity image, voids encountered during drilling in a water-based mud (WBM) system are filled with conductive fluid and displayed as darker, conductive pixels. The introduced method identifies and determines a number of these conductive pixels from a histogram that is generated from a micro-resistivity image of micro-resistivity values measured from a section of a well.”; [0012]: “The introduced method also includes partitioning of a horizontal section based on the derived permeability profiles and petrophysical attributes because the determination of lateral permeability variations is a critical factor for optimizing the stimulation and completion design.”)
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18,
Abdulkarim further teaches: wherein generating the contrast-enhanced resistivity image for the resistivity image comprises: determining the cutoff value for the resistivity image; and generating, based on the determined cutoff value, the contrast-enhanced resistivity image for the resistivity image. (Fig. 5; [0026]: “More specifically, the processor 456 can determine the number of conductive pixels in the histogram by calculating an average value of the micro-resistivity values at the certain depth, determining an invasion indicator using a separation between shallow and deep laterolog resistivity measurements at the certain depth from the laterolog tool 412, and deriving a cutoff value at the certain depth based on the average value and the invasion indicator. The conductive pixels are pixels that have micro-resistivity values less than the cutoff value.“; [0030]: “Third Track 530 shows a micro-resistivity histogram, with average micro-resistivity 532 and calculated conductive pixels cutoffs 534. Shaded area 536, the interval to the left of the cutoffs 534, represents an area where conductive pixels are.”, [0011]: “and displayed as darker, conductive pixels.”)
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 19,
Abdulkarim further teaches: wherein determining the cutoff value for the resistivity image comprises: determining, using mud property data of the earth formation surrounding the borehole, the cutoff value for the resistivity image. ([0011]: “the introduced method derives a cutoff value as an invasion indicator of mud filtrate”; [0037]-[0038])
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) 5, 8, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulkarim in view of Zhang et al. US 20190331813 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 20,
Abdulkarim teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2, 11, and 17 as described above.
Abdulkarim fails to describe, however Zhang, in analogous art of wellbore log analysis, teaches: wherein identifying, based on the contrast- enhanced resistivity image, the plurality of flow members comprises: generating a respective reservoir quality index (RQI) of the contrast-enhanced resistivity image at each of a plurality of depths of the contrast-enhanced resistivity image; and identifying, based on the generated plurality of RQIs, the plurality of flow members in the earth formation surrounding the borehole. (Zhang: Figs. 5-6; [0029]: “the logs may be combined linearly to generate the continuous wellbore quality index at 112, such as an RQ log or CQ log. In one or more embodiments, users can apply a threshold cutoff at 114 to a generated wellbore quality index to designate intervals having specified characteristics, such as indicating the presence of pay zones or intervals suitable as completion targets.”; [0071]: “An RQ index may be used, for example, to predict pay intervals by setting a threshold of reservoir quality to flag regions of interest that may be economically viable…With respect to FIG. 5, RQ index 510 is modified by the addition of threshold 514 of 0.52, which may be visually indicated by shaded intervals of interest 518. Further, horizontal lines 514 across all logs may be used to represent the corresponding pay zone boundaries. Thresholding could also be used to generate other forms of reservoir information, including pay flag proportion for a measured wellbore interval or within a formation interval of interest.”; [0076])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Abdulkarim’s system and method for identifying flow members, as described above, to further include identifying the flow members based on generating RQIs in view of Zhang in order to more accurately assess reservoir quality and better identify economically viable pay and potential completion zones (e.g. Zhang: [0002]: “and methods are needed to identify and correct for data redundancy across multiple wellbore logs in order to efficiently identify wellbore zones that may contain economically viable pay and potential completion zones.”, [0029]-[0030], [0071]) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Regarding claim 8,
Abdulkarim teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 3 as described above.
Abdulkarim further teaches: wherein determining the cutoff value for the resistivity image comprises: receiving formation testing data and formation sampling data from a plurality of boreholes; ([0015]: “As the bit extends the borehole through the formations, the tool suite 26 collects measurements relating to various formation properties as well as the tool orientation and various other drilling conditions.”; [0024]: “The interface 452 is configured to receive measurements from the LWD tool 410, e.g., the laterolog tool 412, the micro-resistivity imaging sensor 414. The interface 452 is also configured to receive other log-derived measurements such as Stoneley waves, NMR and formation tester measurements.”, [0027]: “from formation tester data acquired on a wipe run by a formation tester (not shown). A wipe run is a run subsequent a drilling run, wherein a string with a formation tester is built and run into a borehole for pressure and mobility measurement. ”)
Abdulkarim fails to describe, however Zhang, in analogous art of wellbore log analysis, teaches: and updating, using a machine learning model and based on the received formation testing data and formation sampling data, the cutoff value for the resistivity image. (Zhang: [0030]-[0031]: “If a flagged interval of interest is known and a well log already exists in a well, the threshold values used to flag the interval may be used for machine learning, which may minimize the misclassification rate by an iterative process with user input or automatically optimizing the threshold value for generated quality indices.“, [0074]: “In instances where regions of interest such as pay flags are provided, optimal thresholding of the continuous RQ index may be computed by supervised machine learning methods by minimizing the misclassification rate by adjusting the cutoff value.”, [0075]: “In log 612, pay intervals determined by a supervised classification method are indicated by shaded region. Optimal thresholding value 0.46 (dashed line 614) was determined by minimum misclassification value determined by the classification algorithm using the continuous RQ log as input compared with the supplied known examples.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Abdulkarim’s system and method for identifying flow members, as described above, to further include updating the cut-off value using machine learning and testing and sampling data in view of Zhang in order to optimize thresholding and minimize misclassification of regions of interest to better identify economically viable pay and potential completion zones (e.g. Zhang: [0002]: “and methods are needed to identify and correct for data redundancy across multiple wellbore logs in order to efficiently identify wellbore zones that may contain economically viable pay and potential completion zones.”, [0074]-[0075]: “optimal thresholding of the continuous RQ index may be computed by supervised machine learning methods by minimizing the misclassification rate by adjusting the cutoff value.”) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulkarim in view of Batmaz et al. US20170362935A1 (hereinafter “Batmaz”).
Regarding claim 9,
Abdulkarim teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1 as described above.
Abdulkarim fails to describe, however Batmaz in analogous art of borehole assessment and drilling, teaches: wherein providing the identified plurality of flow members for well completion or sampling of the borehole comprises: determining, based on the identified plurality of flow members, one or more directions of perforation in the earth formation surrounding the borehole; and providing the determined one or more directions of perforation for well completion of the borehole. (Batmaz: [0027]: “a method for optimizing completions may include obtaining measurements characterizing the stress regime of a wellbore and either targeting locations with a normal stress regime or overcoming fracture placement challenges in non-normal stress regimes (i.e., strike-slip or thrust stress regimes). For example, targeting locations with a normal stress regime may include changing a well trajectory or selecting reservoir access locations along normal stress regimes in a wellbore. Overcoming fracture placement challenges in non-normal stress regimes may include selecting reservoir access locations (e.g., perforations) in certain high stress regions of the non-normal stress regimes or in regions of the non-normal stress regimes having high differential stress between two principle stresses acting on the borehole.”; [0091] : “During drilling, additional formation data may be collected, and based on the additional data, the original trajectory may be altered. For example, additional data may indicate a predicted area of the formation having a normal stress regime.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Abdulkarim’s system and method for identifying flow members, as described above, to further include determining and providing directions of perforation for well completion based on the identified flow members in view of Batmaz in order to optimize completions and overcome fracture placement challenges during drilling (e.g. Batmaz [0027], [0091]: “By altering the trajectory of a borehole to extend through a normal stress regime, workflows for forming reservoir access (e.g., perforating) in normal stress regimes may be used along the borehole for finding optimized reservoir access locations that are more likely to have fracture initiation, fracture propagation, and fracture orientation in a vertical direction.”) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the combination of elements in claims 6, 7, and 15. Specifically, the prior art fails to describe the calculation of RQI according to the specific calculations claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELBY A TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-6334. (via email: Shelby.Turner1@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an Internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 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, Technology Center Director Allana Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857