DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 7/26/23 and is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. BR10 2022 014878 3, filed on 7/27/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a
grammatical error in the sentence structure of the limitation where it states, “wherein step (a) additionally comprises providing a maximum number of wells to be generated provided by the user”. The examiner recommends removing the word “provided”. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 15
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 15 are directed towards a method and medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “wherein, in the genetic algorithm, each chromosome represents a well to be positioned in the producing field”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a) obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “b) obtaining a new generation of the drainage mesh from the current drainage mesh by means of a genetic algorithm, wherein the new generation of the drainage mesh becomes the current drainage mesh” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and c) repeating the step (b) until a stopping criterion is reached”. This limitation is repeating the obtaining step of subsection 2, therefore, the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations “a) obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh”, “b) obtaining a new generation of the drainage mesh from the current drainage mesh by means of a genetic algorithm, wherein the new generation of the drainage mesh becomes the current drainage mesh” and “and c) repeating the step (b) until a stopping criterion is reached” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 15
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 15 recites “wherein, in the genetic algorithm, each chromosome represents a well to be positioned in the producing field”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a) obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “b) obtaining a new generation of the drainage mesh from the current drainage mesh by means of a genetic algorithm, wherein the new generation of the drainage mesh becomes the current drainage mesh” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and c) repeating the step (b) until a stopping criterion is reached”. This limitation is repeating the obtaining step of subsection 2, therefore, the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a computer and a medium. The computer and a medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations “a) obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh”, “b) obtaining a new generation of the drainage mesh from the current drainage mesh by means of a genetic algorithm, wherein the new generation of the drainage mesh becomes the current drainage mesh” and “and c) repeating the step (b) until a stopping criterion is reached” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer and a medium amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the initial drainage mesh is provided by a user.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the initial drainage mesh is randomly generated by the genetic algorithm.”. This limitation is generating a initial drainage mesh using a genetic algorithm. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the initial drainage mesh has one or more fixed wells.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein step (b) is performed based on one or more multiphase flow curves of the producing field provided by a user.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what is doing the performing of step(b). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein at least one gene on at least one of the chromosomes in the genetic algorithm is kept fixed or within a predefined range.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein step (a) additionally comprises providing a maximum number of wells to be generated provided by the user.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein each well is a producing well or an injecting well.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the maximum number of wells to be generated includes a maximum number of injecting wells and/or a maximum number of producing wells.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein each well can be a horizontal, vertical or directional well.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “the wherein step (b) comprises calculating the net present value (NPV) of the new drainage mesh based on predefined parameters.”. This limitation is calculating the net present value (NPV) of the new drainage mesh based on predefined parameters. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the stopping criterion is either reaching a predefined maximum number of generations or the NPV reaching a predefined value.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the NPV calculation parameters include one or more of the cost of wells, platform cost, operational cost of oil, water and gas production, operational cost of water and gas injection, tax rates, fees, royalties.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the stopping criterion is a maximum number of repetitions of the step (b).”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without 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, 3-4, 6, 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Bouzarkounda et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0059634).
With respect to claim 1, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “A computer-implemented method for optimizing the drainage mesh in oil and/or gas producing fields” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0024] “Thus, the invention relates to a method for determining placements for drainage areas within a hydrocarbon reservoir that allows for an optimal operation of this reservoir, by limiting the number of flow simulations. To achieve this, the method is based on the definition of an approximate model to evaluate the quality of the operation, and on an evaluation of the quality of this approximate model.”)];
“a) obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0024] “Thus, the invention relates to a method for determining placements for drainage areas within a hydrocarbon reservoir that allows for an optimal operation of this reservoir, by limiting the number of flow simulations. To achieve this, the method is based on the definition of an approximate model to evaluate the quality of the operation, and on an evaluation of the quality of this approximate model.”)];
“b) obtaining a new generation of the drainage mesh from the current drainage mesh by means of a genetic algorithm, wherein the new generation of the drainage mesh becomes the current drainage mesh” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0026] “and the following steps are carried out: [0026] i. generating drainage area configurations randomly, by generating, for each configuration, placements for each drainage area”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0027] “ii. determining the placements for each drainage area that make it possible to optimize the quality criterion, by modifying the configurations by an iterative optimization algorithm during which: for first iterations, the quality criterion is evaluated by the flow simulator and of the reservoir model”)];
“and c) repeating the step (b) until a stopping criterion is reached, wherein, in the genetic algorithm, each chromosome represents a well to be positioned in the producing field.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraphs [0034] – [0037] “[0034] a. computing the quality criterion for each configuration by the approximate model, and a first ranking of the configurations is carried out according to the value of the criterion for each configuration; [0035] b. n configurations associated with the highest criteria are selected, and the quality criterion is computed for these n configurations by the flow simulator and of the reservoir model with each configuration and each criterion being added to the data structure; [0036] c. the quality criterion is computed again for each configuration by the approximate model constructed on the completed data structure, and a second ranking of the configurations is carried out according to the value of the criterion for each configuration; and [0037] d. the quality of the approximate model is evaluated by comparing the first ranking and the second ranking.”, Bouzarkounda et al. paragraph [0133] “During the optimization process, the method according to the invention succeeds in finding the best area configurations (FIG. 3). FIG. 3 shows the trend of the best NPV value found by using the method according to the invention (INV) and compares it with that found while using a conventional approach (CONV). The X axis gives the number of flow simulations used. The Y axis gives the NPV value. The points on the curve mark the transition from one iteration to another. The best configuration is presented in FIG. 4 with the positions of the drainage area of the production well, denoted PROD, and the position of the drainage area of the injection well, denoted INJ.”, Fig. 3)];
With respect to claim 3, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein the initial drainage mesh is randomly generated by the genetic algorithm.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0026] “and the following steps are carried out: [0026] i. generating drainage area configurations randomly, by generating, for each configuration, placements for each drainage area”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0027] “ii. determining the placements for each drainage area that make it possible to optimize the quality criterion, by modifying the configurations by an iterative optimization algorithm during which: for first iterations, the quality criterion is evaluated by the flow simulator and of the reservoir model”)];
With respect to claim 4, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein the initial drainage mesh has one or more fixed wells.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0024] “Thus, the invention relates to a method for determining placements for drainage areas within a hydrocarbon reservoir that allows for an optimal operation of this reservoir, by limiting the number of flow simulations. To achieve this, the method is based on the definition of an approximate model to evaluate the quality of the operation, and on an evaluation of the quality of this approximate model.”)];
With respect to claim 6, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein at least one gene on at least one of the chromosomes in the genetic algorithm is kept fixed or within a predefined range.” As [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0133] “During the optimization process, the method according to the invention succeeds in finding the best area configurations (FIG. 3). FIG. 3 shows the trend of the best NPV value found by using the method according to the invention (INV) and compares it with that found while using a conventional approach (CONV). The X axis gives the number of flow simulations used. The Y axis gives the NPV value. The points on the curve mark the transition from one iteration to another. The best configuration is presented in FIG. 4 with the positions of the drainage area of the production well, denoted PROD, and the position of the drainage area of the injection well, denoted INJ.”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0134] “PROD is defined by the two ends that have the coordinates (2587, 2658, 2385) and (2076, 2077, 2417). INJ is defined by the two ends that have for coordinates (711, 4872, 2421) and (674, 4729, 2417)., The examiner considers the coordinates of production and injection wells to be the at least one gene of the chromosomes, since the genes are variables of the initial and final positions of the well on a map, see paragraph [0044] of the specification)];
With respect to claim 8, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein each well is a producing well or an injecting well.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0133] “During the optimization process, the method according to the invention succeeds in finding the best area configurations (FIG. 3). FIG. 3 shows the trend of the best NPV value found by using the method according to the invention (INV) and compares it with that found while using a conventional approach (CONV). The X axis gives the number of flow simulations used. The Y axis gives the NPV value. The points on the curve mark the transition from one iteration to another. The best configuration is presented in FIG. 4 with the positions of the drainage area of the production well, denoted PROD, and the position of the drainage area of the injection well, denoted INJ.”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0134] “PROD is defined by the two ends that have the coordinates (2587, 2658, 2385) and (2076, 2077, 2417). INJ is defined by the two ends that have for coordinates (711, 4872, 2421) and (674, 4729, 2417).)];
With respect to claim 9, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein the maximum number of wells to be generated includes a maximum number of injecting wells and/or a maximum number of producing wells.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0055] “The expression "drainage area" is used to mean an area of the reservoir passed through by a well. In this step, the number of wells to be drilled through the reservoir is defined, defining drainage areas. These wells may be injection and/or production wells.”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0071] “A choice can be made, for example, to determine the placement of two drainage areas corresponding to an injection well and a production well, a population size equal to 40 and a stop criterion corresponding to the maximum number of generations equal to 60 iterations.”)];
With respect to claim 10, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein each well can be a horizontal, vertical or directional well.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0114] “This method is applied to a synthetic reservoir. This reservoir has a size of 3420 m.times.5040 m.times.90 m. The mesh is Cartesian with 19 meshes in the direction x, 28 meshes in the direction y and 5 meshes in the direction z. The mesh size is 180 m.times.180 m.times.18 m. The vertical elevation of the reservoir is presented in FIG. 1.”, Fig. 1)];
With respect to claim 11, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “the wherein step (b) comprises calculating the net present value (NPV) of the new drainage mesh based on predefined parameters.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0056] “The quality of the operation of the reservoir is conventionally evaluated by a parameter called NPV (net present value), corresponding to the difference in the cash flows generated by the investment corresponding to the placement of the wells.”)];
With respect to claim 12, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein the stopping criterion is either reaching a predefined maximum number of generations or the NPV reaching a predefined value.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0101] “According to one embodiment, the method is carried out several times with a different number of drainage areas, in order to choose the best configuration, that is to say, the one which offers the best quality criterion (highest NPV or highest well production).”)];
With respect to claim 13, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein the NPV calculation parameters include one or more of the cost of wells, platform cost, operational cost of oil, water and gas production, operational cost of water and gas injection, tax rates, fees, royalties.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0056] “The quality of the operation of the reservoir is conventionally evaluated by a parameter called NPV (net present value), corresponding to the difference in the cash flows generated by the investment corresponding to the placement of the wells.”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0114] – [0115] “This method is applied to a synthetic reservoir. This reservoir has a size of 3420 m.times.5040 m.times.90 m. The mesh is Cartesian with 19 meshes in the direction x, 28 meshes in the direction y and 5 meshes in the direction z. The mesh size is 180 m.times.180 m.times.18 m. The vertical elevation of the reservoir is presented in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 shows the mesh of the reservoir used, and comprises a perspective view of the reservoir (a) and a plan view (b). The field concerned does not contain any well that is already drilled. It is proposed to find the best placement for each of the two drainage areas with only a main trunk (without lateral drains). The quality criterion chosen is the NPV defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
59
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which Q.sub.n,p is the production of the field concerned in the phase p in the period n, C.sub.n,p is the gain or the loss associated with the production of the phase p during the period n, the phase p may represent oil, gas or water which are respectively denoted by o, g, w, APR is the annual percentage interest rate. Y is the number of periods concerned, C.sub.d is the cost involved in the drilling and completion for the wells concerned, C.sub.d is approximated as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
53
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)];
With respect to claim 14, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses “wherein the stopping criterion is a maximum number of repetitions of the step (b).” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0068] “According to one embodiment, the optimization process is performed by using a stochastic optimization algorithm of CMA-ES type. The CMA-ES algorithm is an optimization algorithm based on population evolving on each iteration (called generation). A population is defined as a set of drainage area configurations which are solutions, called individuals, of the problem. The CMA-ES algorithm therefore modifies, iteratively, the parameters of these configurations so as to maximize the objective function concerned until a fixed stop criterion is reached. This stop criterion may relate, in practice, to a maximum number of reservoir simulations or to a maximum number of iterations to be performed.”)];
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouzarkounda et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0059634) in view of AlQanhtani et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0011332).
With respect to claim 2, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While Bouzarkounda et al. teaches obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh, Bouzarkounda et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein the initial drainage mesh is provided by a user.”
AlQanhtani et al. discloses “wherein the initial drainage mesh is provided by a user.” As [AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0180] “To facilitate a user interaction with the multilateral wells generation process, a graphical user interface (GUI) is utilized to specify input parameters described above, and also used as an analysis tool to visualize the generated multilateral wells and observe their consistency.”)];
Bouzarkounda et al. and AlQanhtani et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the placement of wells.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bouzarkounda et al. of obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh by incorporating wherein the initial drainage mesh is provided by a user as taught by AlQanhtani et al. for the purpose of optimizing the placement of wells in an oilfield.
Bouzarkounda et al. in view of AlQanhtani et al. teaches wherein the initial drainage mesh is provided by a user.
The motivation for doing so would have been because AlQanhtani et al. teaches that by user having the ability to modify the placement of the wells, the ability to determine the most production from a well can be accomplished. This allows a user to know the efficiency of a well (AlQanhtani et al. paragraphs [0003] – [0005]).
With respect to claim 5, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While Bouzarkounda et al. teaches obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh, Bouzarkounda et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein step (b) is performed based on one or more multiphase flow curves of the producing field provided by a user.”
AlQanhtani et al. discloses “wherein step (b) is performed based on one or more multiphase flow curves of the producing field provided by a user.” as [AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0016] “The data processing system also includes a user interface which forms an output display of the at least one multilateral well at a location in the reservoir model according to the optimized placement.”, AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0032] “Optimum locations and trajectories are developed for the multilateral wells in local and global terms.”, AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0033] “With the present invention, a plurality of multilateral wells is located by well placement methodology in a large scale reservoir so that a profit measure is maximized over selected chronicle life of a specific field. The present invention uses Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) as the engine for wells placement optimization.”)];
Bouzarkounda et al. and AlQanhtani et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the placement of wells.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bouzarkounda et al. of obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh by incorporating wherein step (b) is performed based on one or more multiphase flow curves of the producing field provided by a user as taught by AlQanhtani et al. for the purpose of optimizing the placement of wells in an oilfield.
Bouzarkounda et al. in view of AlQanhtani et al. teaches wherein step (b) is performed based on one or more multiphase flow curves of the producing field provided by a user.
The motivation for doing so would have been because AlQanhtani et al. teaches that by user having the ability to modify the placement of the wells, the ability to determine the most production from a well can be accomplished. This allows a user to know the efficiency of a well (AlQanhtani et al. paragraphs [0003] – [0005]).
With respect to claim 7, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above.
While Bouzarkounda et al. teaches obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh, Bouzarkounda et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein step (a) additionally includes comprises providing a maximum number of wells to be generated provided by the user.”
AlQanhtani et al. discloses “wherein step (a) additionally comprises providing a maximum number of wells to be generated provided by the user.” As [AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0105] “To address the well placement limitations, a user defines an upper bound on the number of wells which can be constructed, denotes MaxWells, and a maximum global project cost, denoted MaxGlobalCost.”)];
Bouzarkounda et al. and AlQanhtani et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the placement of wells.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bouzarkounda et al. of obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh by incorporating wherein step (a) additionally includes comprises providing a maximum number of wells to be generated provided by the user as taught by AlQanhtani et al. for the purpose of optimizing the placement of wells in an oilfield.
Bouzarkounda et al. in view of AlQanhtani et al. teaches wherein step (a) additionally includes comprises providing a maximum number of wells to be generated provided by the user.
The motivation for doing so would have been because AlQanhtani et al. teaches that by user having the ability to modify the placement of the wells, the ability to determine the most production from a well can be accomplished. This allows a user to know the efficiency of a well (AlQanhtani et al. paragraphs [0003] – [0005]).
With respect to claim 15, Bouzarkounda et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Bouzarkounda et al. further discloses “a) obtaining a current drainage mesh from an initial drainage mesh” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0024] “Thus, the invention relates to a method for determining placements for drainage areas within a hydrocarbon reservoir that allows for an optimal operation of this reservoir, by limiting the number of flow simulations. To achieve this, the method is based on the definition of an approximate model to evaluate the quality of the operation, and on an evaluation of the quality of this approximate model.”)];
“b) obtaining a new generation of the drainage mesh from the current drainage mesh by means of a genetic algorithm, wherein the new generation of the drainage mesh becomes the current drainage mesh” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0026] “and the following steps are carried out: [0026] i. generating drainage area configurations randomly, by generating, for each configuration, placements for each drainage area”, Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraph [0027] “ii. determining the placements for each drainage area that make it possible to optimize the quality criterion, by modifying the configurations by an iterative optimization algorithm during which: for first iterations, the quality criterion is evaluated by the flow simulator and of the reservoir model”)];
“and c) repeating the step (b) until a stopping criterion is reached,wherein, in the genetic algorithm, each chromosome represents a well to be positioned in the producing field.” as [Bouzarkounda et al. (paragraphs [0034] – [0037] “[0034] a. computing the quality criterion for each configuration by the approximate model, and a first ranking of the configurations is carried out according to the value of the criterion for each configuration; [0035] b. n configurations associated with the highest criteria are selected, and the quality criterion is computed for these n configurations by the flow simulator and of the reservoir model with each configuration and each criterion being added to the data structure; [0036] c. the quality criterion is computed again for each configuration by the approximate model constructed on the completed data structure, and a second ranking of the configurations is carried out according to the value of the criterion for each configuration; and [0037] d. the quality of the approximate model is evaluated by comparing the first ranking and the second ranking.”, Bouzarkounda et al. paragraph [0133] “During the optimization process, the method according to the invention succeeds in finding the best area configurations (FIG. 3). FIG. 3 shows the trend of the best NPV value found by using the method according to the invention (INV) and compares it with that found while using a conventional approach (CONV). The X axis gives the number of flow simulations used. The Y axis gives the NPV value. The points on the curve mark the transition from one iteration to another. The best configuration is presented in FIG. 4 with the positions of the drainage area of the production well, denoted PROD, and the position of the drainage area of the injection well, denoted INJ.”, Fig. 3)];
While Bouzarkounda et al. teaches optimizing the placement of wells in an oilfield, Bouzarkounda et al. does not explicitly disclose “A computer-readable non-transient storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, characterized in that the instructions, when read by a computer”
AlQanhtani et al. discloses “A computer-readable non-transient storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, characterized in that the instructions, when read by a computer” as [AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0017] “The present invention also provides a new and improved A data storage device having stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium computer operable instructions for causing a data processing system to formulate well completions of at least one multilateral well in a subsurface reservoir producing hydrocarbon fluids, the reservoir being organized as a reservoir model partitioned into a number of cells.”, AlQanhtani et al. (paragraph [0015] “Briefly, the present invention provides a new and improved computer implemented method of formulating well completions of at least one multilateral well in a subsurface reservoir producing hydrocarbon fluids, the reservoir being organized as a reservoir model partitioned into a number of cells.”)];
Bouzarkounda et al. and AlQanhtani et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the placement of wells.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bouzarkounda et al. of optimizing the placement of wells in an oilfield by incorporating a computer-readable non-transient storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, characterized in that the instructions, when read by a computer as taught by AlQanhtani et al. for the purpose of optimizing the placement of wells in an oilfield.
Bouzarkounda et al. in view of AlQanhtani et al. teaches a computer-readable non-transient storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, characterized in that the instructions, when read by a computer.
The motivation for doing so would have been because AlQanhtani et al. teaches that by user having the ability to modify the placement of the wells, the ability to determine the most production from a well can be accomplished. This allows a user to know the efficiency of a well (AlQanhtani et al. paragraphs [0003] – [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Awotunde et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0160369) is a computerized optimization method using net present value (NPV) and voidage replacement ratio (VRR) in waterflooding as simultaneous objective functions in the determination of the optimal location of wells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights